IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-privacy] Wiki for managing PPM reviews of existing RFCs

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Mon, 24 March 2014 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
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 0CC2D1A01EA for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 05:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 2IyXHb4XRG_Y for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 05:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22a.google.com (mail-ob0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C801A01F1 for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 05:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id uz6so5654100obc.1 for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 05:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=T3lzM06o5ZQTM9EN/kjPgwqmE366MBzSl+9uPxBCIKM=; b=tN/bWuHS2Ym1A1/X26IsmlAHRKx/nrWtgdFh8QRBEEaRCRJiPX6IdNuCH6f1tz717d xk0qDaHfLfVl8gor996mzlcpUr+ZsQROmaewFfWYT29gb43olBNGsOFsyofInN3uzxEu eIrOYoVoqOOypEkqTtApuZQzNp9mQbdSK4o99ez6/eYgXGEZ98i8cRaCphY8FJhcspq1 3Wl8CeSOKVDY4/DyFvYiD4WeG7t9BUazPnqCI32KP/ifK/HU64f9XveFgRG0b6Vsj51Y WHfxTeA06V5HuqSvycLMfR1vQ9ugPgqg01stl+t1J1PGGqkJ/JkVOj4VU7oDiejoSLI0 i9Aw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.56.200 with SMTP id c8mr362619oeq.80.1395664442723; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 05:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.48.9 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 05:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.48.9 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 05:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140324094918.GA13307@nic.fr>
References: <CAPv4CP9otoccFv9ARVHwqqF6nzKT-p7uDWF=ceCotiDCgL=rqA@mail.gmail.com> <201403241049032689006@cnnic.cn> <20140324094918.GA13307@nic.fr>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:34:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP8pkrG+aSECr7NT66mfpdfB7nSvgQPQGdudq_7u_M6BzA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0153709455939204f55973b5"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-privacy/zjfkZ9vkVfsFvC46wYQjApWzAK4
Cc: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] Wiki for managing PPM reviews of existing RFCs
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: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:34:05 -0000

On Mar 24, 2014 5:49 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:49:10AM +0800,
>  Jiankang Yao <yaojk@cnnic.cn> wrote
>  a message of 116 lines which said:
>
> > since there are thousands of RFCs,
>
> IMHO, the work should be indexed by PROTOCOL not by RFC, since some
> protocols are specified in many RFCs (DNS...)

The unit of specification is the RFC, so shouldn't that be the main key for
indexing? We have a dropdown for IETF area -- we could use another field,
text, for affected protocols.

Your ticket #8 is good for showing "intention". I hadn't thought of using
initial entries like that, and it's an intriguing idea. I think I'm in
favor. However, when you do an actual review, could you either modify your
existing entry or add a new one for each specific RFC?

Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email