-----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 [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy > > > > _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy > mailing list [email protected] > 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----- _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
