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

Stephen Farrell <> Wed, 21 May 2014 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455811A072A for <>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1z-Xjo1V7-S2 for <>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F061A0712 for <>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D8FBE76; Wed, 21 May 2014 16:43:53 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RDczeqGIdAoh; Wed, 21 May 2014 16:43:51 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D04DFBE47; Wed, 21 May 2014 16:43:51 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 16:43:51 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <>,
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] old RFC reviews - please try this...
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:43:58 -0000

Hash: SHA1


On 21/05/14 16:32, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> One practical question: My first draw was RFC 963 "SOME PROBLEMS
> 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?

I'd say lets suck it and see. Hitting refresh is easy:-)

I figure that matching the complexity/importance of the RFC
to the amount of time you have available is entirely reasonable.

And its also ok to write a "nothing to see here, move along"
review. Who knows - someone might disagree with you (e.g. as
SM correctly did with mine), so those can be useful too.

And when/if we start getting reviews then we can see how to
improve things (either the tool or guidance or whatever).

For now, just getting it going is my goal...


> 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] [2] 
>> _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy 
>> mailing list 
> _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy
> mailing list 
Version: GnuPG v1