-----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 [email protected] > 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 [email protected] 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/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTfMb+AAoJEF+GaYdAqahxV3IP/iVZagXJQJgoROqkH0sEUrUT sbOyUTfO9qwEqWwNjMkLg3zLy9ZNfr3sSsXkygn6uPYbVFw5MnEiZgY/KQycltCP mk6CTh0w5M9TI7LVTOkcoX00GjIxCyiQfVj47vc9wyduGBAttwhPNRqLOK3XURvV vQNjGBcaMNw/XIRet6fSKhcta0vXnk7lVKrpDN86m5kSHpBxIEsYIFs9gQxvr7pQ XHz0tL6F3VxbUWJDJeU5o+ttqi01l8E7lGFOIO3dPTs/fwtlMGwZSseq3kGl6lQU beCxfG0Mwjggp5i6EFG01XQRXnQRqksYtVJLjH+iFBIf3mnmtvk9PPay8asmzvMi /syudR6TwSPqQF54skmESdksPNZCN6uzfTRO9FL+D+UquYu7T9QMjs6nax1yFBVk +v0jiYqGuRlfBruxZSo5GPkPUEzSxAtlQEaMzuE45zl/fRoTcmsXLYGiG3RCDpuB 1JjLIxmaUsX+rh8gEVXLXUbXQxz9Z8Gv1WQJscZUvdjWz6dANaAVaICwTovOB9Oe L+LD9g+vnBgsHODgPuAs8/zd0Tp2AGoGrZtOWwmT+AK4BF0GlisD5k8LqMCFL70A IPRK6Lvb5d+712WHIQKeUSD6I7M6LFh3enzgqN6b7DrVEO4rZgfSPvXr8TCAVGOm y6hVN6rvGBZkB8BS/niu =6fEh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
