Subject: RE: [newtrk] Value of reclassification

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:48:57 +0300

Margaret,

> >Such a web page would become one-stop shopping for IETF standards,
> >and wouldn't require a degree in IETFology.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> How could we organize to do this?

Pick a sample protocol or two, have the current WG suggest how a web page
might work, ask the tool team to create a script to make a sample page.

John

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 10:45:11 -0500

I type this knowing that I'm volunteering to help, if the following is 
the right answer.

One of the challenges we will face with a sample web page is that 
people are going to expect its contents to actually be correct (for 
some value of "correct"), so we should pick a protocol based on our 
ability to agree on the contents of the web page that describes it, 
and (since this agreement will require more than zero effort), a 
protocol whose sample web page would be used.

With this in mind - I've been talking to the SIP/SIPPING mafia about 
the SIP community being a "mini-IETF" - they have produced a bunch of 
specifications, in a bunch of working groups, and a LOT of people 
outside the IETF have to figure out "what SIP is" from their 
specifications (3GPP/3GPP2/OMA, for starters).

How much of SIP/SIPPING/XCON/SIMPLE would be "not too big to tackle, 
not too small to be useful, but just right"?

Another obvious candidate might be (some portion of) IPv6, but that's 
not my area, so I couldn't help as much if we went that way.

Other candidate protocols?

Spencer, who is visualizing the Goldilocks children's story as I type 
("oh, goodie, now everyone will know SIP is a fairy tale!")

From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 8:48 AM
Subject: RE: [newtrk] Value of reclassification

.

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:37:51 -0500

At 10:45 AM 9/4/2004 -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>With this in mind - I've been talking to the SIP/SIPPING mafia about the 
>SIP community being a "mini-IETF" - they have produced a bunch of 
>specifications, in a bunch of working groups, and a LOT of people outside 
>the IETF have to figure out "what SIP is" from their specifications 
>(3GPP/3GPP2/OMA, for starters).
>
>How much of SIP/SIPPING/XCON/SIMPLE would be "not too big to tackle, not 
>too small to be useful, but just right"?

SIP is a very good choice - as it is not just in one WG (from a 'what it 
is' and 'what it is not' POV), yet also doesn't have a bunch of older docs 
to try and put into perspective (that are still at least somewhat useful).

Attempting to take on a decade old (or more) set of RFCs and choose the 
right one (from a search) will be needed, but likely more difficult. Look 
at John's first ID on "What Standards" with TCP as the example to see how 
this might be a challenge taken on with some experience under someone's 
belt in this effort.

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

.

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 10:58:19 -0700

I'm not volunteering! Just to get that clear.

I've been wondering about what a set of pages about "the web"
would look like. Would there be one page about all of the
UR* RFCs? And another about all of the HTTP variations?
Or would they all come together, and have a bigger survey
that points to URIs, URNs, HTTP, HTTPS, WebDAV and all of
its additions, etc.

Where's the boundary, and how to decide? Should the
document include references to the W3C recommendations
too?

Are 'web services' a separate (mainly non-IETF) suite?

SIP seems easy by comparison.

Larry

.