Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I know the current situation splits the responsibility for
maintaining STD and BCP indexes between IETF and the technical
publisher, but is there any reason why we would choose to continue
with the split responsibility, if we were starting from scratch?
That, I think, is the point of "as directed by the IETF." It makes it
clear where the policy comes from.
Brian
Yeah, I understand the policy part. I'm asking why we want to continue
to have these indexes on a site that's not ietf.org.
I don't know if we will ever do anything with ISDs or SRDs (or any other
metadata grouping), but if this ever happens, it seems like we'll have a
lot more activity with STD-like indexes than we've had thus far. If the
technical publisher was responsible for making sure that our
specifications were available to the community, and IETF was responsible
for making sure that the specifications were correctly classified and
grouped, that would make sense to me. That's not the only way that makes
sense, I'm sure.
I'm just trying to understand what the goal of having the technical
publisher maintain these indexes is.
I think that's a separate question. As far as techspec is concerned,
we want the publisher to do what the IETF wants. If the IETF decides
to maintain these indexes in-house, the direction from the IETF to
the publisher will become "please do nothing." Thus, I'm happy with
the current wording.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
