Re: [ietf-privacy] old RFC reviews - please try this...

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

For the record, this is seriously awesome and kind of fun... Stephen
may be on the way to "gamify" RFC privacy/PPM reviews. ::)

One practical question: My first draw was RFC 963 "SOME PROBLEMS WITH
THE SPECIFICATION OF THE MILITARY STANDARD INTERNET PROTOCOL" from 1985.

Since the first year I remember there being things called "years" was
1982, I'm thinking that a review of this might not be that useful, no?

So, is there a quick rubric for RFCs to review that might be
particularly useful? E.g., should we focus on more recent ones?

best, Joe

On 5/20/14, 5:23 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> A while back Scott and Avri sent out a link [1] to where you can
> put reviews of old RFCs. So far, that hasn't seen overwhelming
> activity, which is a pity, but maybe understandable, since we're
> all busy and doing this is probably not top of anyone's todo list.
> 
> As a reminder, the goal is to get folks to review old RFCs for
> privacy and pervasive monitoring related issues, so that if/when we
> do more work on those protocols we have a head-start. And also
> maybe to motivate people to do such work, or to think a bit more
> about how those protocols are now actually deployed, which may be a
> lot different compared to the assumptions made when they were
> developed.
> 
> Anyway, in a perhaps silly attempt to kick-start that, I've done up
> a bit of a web page that tries to make getting some work done here
> a bit easier. Basically, go to [2] and it'll randomly select an RFC
> and give you a field where you can type your review and then it'll
> craft the mail for you to send to this list. How much easier could
> it be? :-)
> 
> If you've a few minutes, please give it a try and see what you find
> and post your review to this list.
> 
> If this does prove useful, we can try make it better later. If not,
> then I wasted a little of my time, and we can move on to try think
> of other ways to get folks to do this work.
> 
> Of course, you can still just go read any old RFC and send your
> review here or create a ticket, that does still work too:-)
> 
> Thanks, S.
> 
> PS: I guess send bug reports to me, I'm sure there will be bugs.
> 
> 
> [1] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/ppm-legacy-review/wiki [2]
> http://down.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/ppm/
> 
> _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy
> mailing list [e-mail] 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
> 

- -- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I ST NW STE 1100
Washington DC 20006-4011
(p) 202-407-8825
(f) 202-637-0968
[e-mail]
PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=6fEh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----