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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Hiya,

On 21/05/14 16:32, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> 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?

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...

Cheers,
S.


> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy
> mailing list [e-mail] 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTfMm3AAoJEC88hzaAX42iqU0IALCjP3G3W4mYoiQJ8s0tafmJ
lq+mB01W1L5L5ahXajY4OyK8Nc05cSoFCKQBMf3Ya9j3TkCosnb8QvUT6/vFvhUF
lbVX4VljRawuPdXeJL2nJ0hdugyFTWcvYBI5jYhZ+JmgJyZ2aGthBQ1UvPaXk22R
v34hjCoqzGLF3oADygzkG0zjGNPEw7bUknNoWhxe8U8r9EQ9A4bTbPMrzShB2F9R
O5am403e//Z3PmGT/yNuUFqNMxvriqIayu2VFMg3fAW9EISBgjLN4c1zdyp9tvni
GwnAw0GT6+NBCFNRElBtnbmD1v14PjHUC3Mh/uAp7wRhW8t4Du5EYiQus3MgNEU=
=+Gfu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----