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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 21 May 2014 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455811A072A for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1z-Xjo1V7-S2 for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F061A0712 for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D8FBE76; Wed, 21 May 2014 16:43:53 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RDczeqGIdAoh; Wed, 21 May 2014 16:43:51 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [193.1.136.127] (dhcp-c101887f.ucd.ie [193.1.136.127]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D04DFBE47; Wed, 21 May 2014 16:43:51 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <537CC9B7.3040703@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 16:43:51 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 <joe@cdt.org>, ietf-privacy@ietf.org
References: <537B1F16.9070801@cs.tcd.ie> <537CC6FE.3010207@cdt.org>
In-Reply-To: <537CC6FE.3010207@cdt.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-privacy/hIpFrQVx2viF73d4cSto0pR_kZw
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] old RFC reviews - please try this...
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <ietf-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:43:58 -0000

-----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 ietf-privacy@ietf.org 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy
> mailing list ietf-privacy@ietf.org 
> 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-----