Re: [HT-rt] drafts for analysis

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

On 27/04/18 13:29, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> Mallory also had some ideas about analyzing RFCs, and I think Gurshabad
> might have some ideas abt that as well.

This is my draft skeleton for a matrix on suggesting I-Ds or RFCs to
analyse:

 * Content relevance
 ** Does the I-D or RFC relate to areas outlined in RFC 8280?
 ** Are members of the review team already engaged in the working group?
 ** Has the RFC received attention or been controversial?

 * Status
 ** Can comments be submitted before the last call deadline?
 ** Would commentary on an RFC lead to a new I-D?
 ** Would commentary on an RFC be a useful case study in applying the
guidelines?

 * Simplicity
 ** Is the I-D or RFC self-contained enough, eg not too much reliance on
other RFCs to the point where our comments on the specific document at
hand are irrelevant?
 ** Is the I-D or RFC short and straight-forward, eg not overly
complicated or generally too time consuming?

 * Implementation
 ** Is the I-D or RFC likely to be implemented by providers up stream?
 ** Is the I-D or RFC widely supported, eg not generally considered by
the IETF community to be ignored?
 ** Is the RFC, or the RFC that is being revised by an I-D, widely
implemented already?

 * Relationships
 ** Has the I-D or RFC been drafted by individuals or entities engaged
in the research team or HRPC?
 ** Has the I-D or RFC been drafted by individuals or entities with whom
we could partner on, or who would be amenable to improvements?

I believe that we could apply this framework to the suggested analyses
as well as use it to identify potential analyses, both in the future and
retroactively.

-Mallory

-- 
Mallory Knodel
Head of Digital :: article19.org
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9  B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780