Re: Wikis for RFCs
On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a wiki somewhere (e.g., specsannotated.com) and get to work. On Sep 16, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: Wikipedia is about the only example of working volunteer moderation, and even then, there are cabals that supported by the paid management. Few, if any, of the unmanaged wiki sites have long-lasting value. Is there any reason we can't create this on wikipedia itself, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFC3514 We can make use of all the wikipedia governance mechanisms. It would be independent of the IETF, but it would be a well-known place to go for somewhat-moderated explication of the nuances of important RFC's. -- Nathaniel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
Hi Nathaniel, On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Nathaniel Borenstein n...@guppylake.comwrote: Is there any reason we can't create this on wikipedia itself, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFC3514 The problem that I see in this case was mentioned previously by Keith and Hector, wikipedia docs may be modified by the community, the RFCs content itself should not be modified. It should be a kind of mix between blogs and wiki. We can make use of all the wikipedia governance mechanisms. It would be independent of the IETF, but it would be a well-known place to go for somewhat-moderated explication of the nuances of important RFC's. Right! -- Nathaniel Alejandro, ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
Is there any reason we can't create this on wikipedia itself, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFC3514 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all that is supposed to go on the main pages is encyclopedia type material, which this doesn't sound like. There's a talk page where you can have arguments, but that's not particularly well managed or archived. Setting up a mediawiki system is technically trivial, like 15 minutes' work. The hard part is managing it. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Wikis for RFCs
-Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel jaeggli Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 10:18 AM To: Keith Moore Cc: hector; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Wikis for RFCs One of the assumptions here is that discussion without editorial discretion can add color to static informaion. While the case for that can certainly be made, we have abundant evidence of it not doing so in the context of ietf mailing lists. I think I agree that a wiki page for every RFC is too chaotic an idea to be workable. The lists are noisy enough already. It seems to me that if we want the capability to write down and then publish some observations about protocol implementation including problems with the specs or operational considerations, the implementation reports space is perfect for this. They're already required when things advance from PS to DS, but there's nothing I've seen that says particularly useful information can't be written up and recorded through the same means. If and when the advancement day comes for that protocol, the information can then be put to good use. The only question is whether or not they can be updated once published. I suppose we'd need a mechanism for that. Currently that's the IESG, and I imagine that's not something that should stand for very long. Maybe we could use Expert Review to create or update them, except in cases where the implementation report is part of a standards track advancement effort in which case it has to be the IESG. Failing that: Have we already thrown out the idea of an Informational or BCP publication when there's sufficient collected wisdom about a protocol to write down some observations? I think I'd rather read something that has a chance of having garnered consensus and review rather than something that's potentially tainted by the last person to click Submit on a wiki page. -MSK ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
Murry, I think I agree that a wiki page for every RFC is too chaotic an idea to be workable. I agree with the thought that the suggestion under consideration could usefully be amended as a wiki page for every RFC that needs one. If I write a specification, it's published as an RFC, and we don't need to say much else, we don't need a wiki page for that. I'd like to suggest an amendment as a wiki page for every protocol that needs one. One of our problems is that we haven't come up with a useful way of grouping specifications that, taken together, describe a protocol, at some specific point in time. STDs should have been that grouping, but the failure for so many standards-track specifications to advance to full Standard made STDs much less relevant in the IETF as we have it today. When we've done summary documents for protocols that have been massively extended over one or more decades (I'm most familiar with TCP - RFC 4614 - and SIP - RFC 5411), I think those have been very useful, but they tend to be published once - they aren't living descriptions of the protocol as it evolves. Perhaps we should be thinking about how we maintain our body of corporate knowledge at the protocol level, which is not necessarily the individual RFC level. Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
+1 I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki. On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.orgwrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote: Again I would like to bring up the idea of every RFC having an associated wiki page(s). The goal here is to provide a way for implementors to add comments, annotations, clarifications, corrections etc to augment the RFCs. Whilst such commentary can often be found on IETF mailing lists after an RFC is published locating those and searching them can be tedious - plus the full history of discussion on various points is often not relevant to an implementor - all they need to know is what is the correct way to do it now. Doing something like this would obviously require some investment in additional infrastructure. There are also questions about how we would maintain the integrity of the information on the wiki pages, but I think those are things we can easily address. This is something that could be implemented on a volunteer basis as an experiment. If it worked, perhaps IETF could be convinced to take it over. Volunteer moderating of such a Wiki could easily lead to the wiki being of little or no value, and being an embarrassment to the IETF. Consider an RFC that might be construed as supporting the use of NATs on the Internet. Open commenting on the RFC could be fodder for certain people commenting about the applicability of the RFC because NATs Are Evil. There would then likely be counter-comments from people who feel that NATs Have Value. Such comments, if moderated, could be very valuable to an implementer who knows about the RFC but not the bigger picture; unmoderated comments would be no more useful than some of the permathreads on the WG list that created the RFC. Wikipedia is about the only example of working volunteer moderation, and even then, there are cabals that supported by the paid management. Few, if any, of the unmanaged wiki sites have long-lasting value. --Paul Hoffman ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On 9/19/11 8:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: +1 I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki. I don't. I'm basically in Paul's camp, although I don't think the greatest risk is that there'd be a negative impact on how the organization will be perceived by the community (although I agree that there's considerable risk of that). I wouldn't want to provide a forum for contentious discussions will never, ever end, that nothing will ever be resolved, and that people who can't accept organizational decisions will continue to fight those battles on the wiki. I think there's value in wikis to which people can contribute implementation and deployment notes, but only if there's a way to head off endless wars about stuff that's already been resolved by the IETF. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a wiki somewhere (e.g., specsannotated.com) and get to work. If the experiment has value, we'll figure that out. If not, well, it was just an experiment. I agree. I was invited to this discussion by Yaron because I'm the creator of annocpan.org. First, let me say that I have been pleasantly surprised by the constructive behavior of annocpan contributors. There has been very little spam, very little fighting, and very little verbosity (while there is no strict limit on the size of the notes that people can post, the sticky note metaphor encourages brevity and facts instead of discourse). Perhaps the lack of spam and fighting in annocpan is because the traffic is modest, or due to the non-contentious nature of the documents that are being annotated. Each page is just the documentation for a freely available Perl module, take it or leave it, and is not the documentation for a protocol that people are expected to follow. It is possible that an annotated RFC would prove more contentious and noisy, but perhaps not. One way to find out is to try. Someone asked about the possibility of reusing the annocpan code. It is of course freely available and written in Perl, but I'm afraid it might be hard to disentangle from all the assumptions it makes about the way the (CPAN) documents are organized. But if anyone wants to try and has any questions, feel free to drop me a line. When I started annocpan it was as a completely unofficial site, whatever that means in the Perl world (although I did manage to obtain a grant from the Perl Foundation for support and encouragement). I did it because I thought it cold be useful, with very little discussion with the authorities. Later, when a few other people were convinced that it could be useful, I got it to look a little bit more official by, for example, getting links to annocpan from search.cpan.org, which is the de facto official CPAN search site. I do think that annotated RFCs could be useful. You just need to make sure that it is clear that the annotations are unofficial additions and that the underlying RFC is the ruling document. However, my philosophy is that these types of projects are best started as bottom-up experiments. It is somewhat embarrassing when a big or respected organization tries to join some bandwagon by building an official [wiki|social networking site|forum|etc] and it fails. If one or more lonely experimenters fail, no one notices. But if they succeed, then they can be embraced by the organization with a product that is already useful and running. Plus, when you, the experimenter, start the experiment it is much more efficient to be able to be a benevolent dictator over your experiment, instead of having to discuss things over and over (be especially wary of color of the bikeshed types of discussions.) Hope this helps, Ivan ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a wiki somewhere (e.g., specsannotated.com) and get to work. If the experiment has value, we'll figure that out. If not, well, it was just an experiment. Agreed. In my experience, wikis only work well if they have someone overseeing them to weed out the spam and the flame wars. Actual data point: the IRTF ASRG has a wiki (http://wiki.asrg.sp.am) which works reasonably well, but that's mostly because I'm somewhat selective in handing out passwords so I know who's modifying what. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: +1 I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki. I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a wiki somewhere (e.g., specsannotated.com) and get to work. If the experiment has value, we'll figure that out. If not, well, it was just an experiment. This is also my preference. I have never thought of this as something that IETF should start. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Wikis for RFCs
-Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:20 AM To: Peter Saint-Andre Cc: Paul Hoffman; IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Wikis for RFCs On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a wiki somewhere (e.g., specsannotated.com) and get to work. If the experiment has value, we'll figure that out. If not, well, it was just an experiment. This is also my preference. I have never thought of this as something that IETF should start. I like this idea, for those sufficiently enthusiastic about such a project. If it's even a little bit successful, the IETF could perhaps maintain a set of links to offsite wikis discussing particular RFCs or suites of them, making it clear the IETF doesn't endorse them. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: +1 I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki. I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a wiki somewhere (e.g., specsannotated.com) and get to work. If the experiment has value, we'll figure that out. If not, well, it was just an experiment. This is also my preference. I have never thought of this as something that IETF should start. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs allows you to comment on RFCs, although I think these comments get erased sometimes. I remember there being some sarcastic comments about RFC 3514. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote: On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: +1 I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki. I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a wiki somewhere (e.g., specsannotated.com) and get to work. If the experiment has value, we'll figure that out. If not, well, it was just an experiment. This is also my preference. I have never thought of this as something that IETF should start. I believe this is the way to go. Keith Alejandro, ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Alejandro Acosta alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote: On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: +1 I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki. I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a wiki somewhere (e.g., specsannotated.com) and get to work. If the experiment has value, we'll figure that out. If not, well, it was just an experiment. This is also my preference. I have never thought of this as something that IETF should start. I believe this is the way to go. Would you view this as an IETF activity, and thus subject to the Note Well ? Regards Marshall Keith Alejandro, ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Marshall Eubanks marshall.euba...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Alejandro Acosta alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote: On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: +1 I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki. I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a wiki somewhere (e.g., specsannotated.com) and get to work. If the experiment has value, we'll figure that out. If not, well, it was just an experiment. This is also my preference. I have never thought of this as something that IETF should start. I believe this is the way to go. Would you view this as an IETF activity, and thus subject to the Note Well ? No, on the contrary, I see this as an activity that can be started by a bunch on people somewhere else, not even by IETF/ISOC staff. Of course mailing lists are great, however from my point of view it looks very interesting to have a wiki where it can be easier to see what have the people discussed /said about some RFC, comments, doubts, etc. Regards Marshall Alejandro, Keith Alejandro, ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
I think a wiki per RFC with any sort of official IETF status is a bad idea that would create many cesspools of controversy. Donald On 9/19/11, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/19/11 8:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: +1 I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki. I don't. I'm basically in Paul's camp, although I don't think the greatest risk is that there'd be a negative impact on how the organization will be perceived by the community (although I agree that there's considerable risk of that). I wouldn't want to provide a forum for contentious discussions will never, ever end, that nothing will ever be resolved, and that people who can't accept organizational decisions will continue to fight those battles on the wiki. I think there's value in wikis to which people can contribute implementation and deployment notes, but only if there's a way to head off endless wars about stuff that's already been resolved by the IETF. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On 9/19/11 20:27 , Donald Eastlake wrote: I think a wiki per RFC with any sort of official IETF status is a bad idea that would create many cesspools of controversy. 6393 of them at present count... It should not go unremarked that 6393 updates an existing document and performs a standards action apparently without much controversy. yet avails itself of the filter our process provides. joel Donald On 9/19/11, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/19/11 8:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: +1 I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki. I don't. I'm basically in Paul's camp, although I don't think the greatest risk is that there'd be a negative impact on how the organization will be perceived by the community (although I agree that there's considerable risk of that). I wouldn't want to provide a forum for contentious discussions will never, ever end, that nothing will ever be resolved, and that people who can't accept organizational decisions will continue to fight those battles on the wiki. I think there's value in wikis to which people can contribute implementation and deployment notes, but only if there's a way to head off endless wars about stuff that's already been resolved by the IETF. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On 9/16/11 12:22 , Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote: I don't see these ass Wikis but basically blog style flat display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially for the user (this way) upon user (not always) follow ups. A Wiki is more where you can change the main content and perhaps even the context. I don't think that is a good idea for RFCs. I'm thinking in terms of a hybrid Wiki where the RFC content is static but the discussion is maintainable as a Wiki and can be visually associated with the RFC content. You'd also want the RFC content to be clearly distinguished from the discussion. One of the assumptions here is that discussion without editorial discretion can add color to static informaion. While the case for that can certainly be made, we have abundant evidence of it not doing so in the context of ietf mailing lists. RFC's (WG documents in general) are the editorial filter through which we pass/preserve the contributed discussion that is deemed informative. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote: On Sep 17, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote: On 9/16/11 12:22 , Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote: I don't see these ass Wikis but basically blog style flat display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially for the user (this way) upon user (not always) follow ups. A Wiki is more where you can change the main content and perhaps even the context. I don't think that is a good idea for RFCs. I'm thinking in terms of a hybrid Wiki where the RFC content is static but the discussion is maintainable as a Wiki and can be visually associated with the RFC content. You'd also want the RFC content to be clearly distinguished from the discussion. One of the assumptions here is that discussion without editorial discretion can add color to static informaion. While the case for that can certainly be made, we have abundant evidence of it not doing so in the context of ietf mailing lists. we have abundant evidence of there being color added in the context of ietf mailing lists. problem is, there's a lot more than color added there. a wiki is a different medium than email. because people can alter and even delete contributions by others, there's some tendency to try to compromise in order to minimize change wars. admittedly, it's an imperfect tendency. Instead of having a wiki, why not have a wikipedia article for each RFC ? Whatever problems we would have with change control, wikipedia is already dealing with. Regards Marshall RFC's (WG documents in general) are the editorial filter through which we pass/preserve the contributed discussion that is deemed informative. this is not true of WG documents in general, which are often quite biased and occasionally one-sided. as for RFCs, there's a lot of overhead associated with them, which is part of why IETF has a difficult time keeping its documents current. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Sep 17, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Instead of having a wiki, why not have a wikipedia article for each RFC ? Whatever problems we would have with change control, wikipedia is already dealing with. wikipedia has different goals. they're really trying to be an encyclopedia; we're talking about using a wiki as a medium to discuss RFCs and implementation of RFCs. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Sep 17, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote: we have abundant evidence of there being color added in the context of ietf mailing lists. problem is, there's a lot more than color added there. a wiki is a different medium than email. because people can alter and even delete contributions by others, there's some tendency to try to compromise in order to minimize change wars. admittedly, it's an imperfect tendency. the frequency with which an opinion is stated by a small but prolific number of individuals should not confer legitimacy over less frequent contributors. I agree. But what does that have to do with the current discussion? RFC's (WG documents in general) are the editorial filter through which we pass/preserve the contributed discussion that is deemed informative. this is not true of WG documents in general, which are often quite biased and occasionally one-sided. I did not say that they were unbiased, I said that they served as filter on the output. Indeed they do. Which argues for having another mechanism for community input. Keith___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
Like Keith, I believe we can benefit a lot from users being able to freely annotate RFCs with implementation notes, corrections and even opinions (this protocol option sucks!). But I also tend to agree with Joel that the wiki format is inappropriate for this purpose, because if people are allowed to change one other's comments, we are very likely to repeat the WG discussion, but without the processes and incentives that enable us to eventually achieve consensus. So I am not as optimistic as Keith about the wiki format leading to a status quo. The same people who would argue their point forever on a mailing list would just keep editing and re-editing the wiki page. I think the Annotated CPAN example ( http://www.annocpan.org/) is near perfect for our needs: - The main text is visually distinguished from the annotations. - Annotations are visually near the relevant text, rather than appended at the end. - The main text cannot be changed. - Annotations can be freely added by anybody, it is trivial to open an account. - Users are identified but with no strong authentication. - One user can comment on another user's comment, but cannot change it. - There is some moderation behind the scenes (I haven't studied it, but it's essential in order to avoid spam). - There's an average of 1-2 comments a day, so a small number of moderators can handle the traffic. Thanks, Yaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Sep 17, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote: Like Keith, I believe we can benefit a lot from users being able to freely annotate RFCs with implementation notes, corrections and even opinions (this protocol option sucks!). But I also tend to agree with Joel that the wiki format is inappropriate for this purpose, because if people are allowed to change one other's comments, we are very likely to repeat the WG discussion, but without the processes and incentives that enable us to eventually achieve consensus. So I am not as optimistic as Keith about the wiki format leading to a status quo. The same people who would argue their point forever on a mailing list would just keep editing and re-editing the wiki page. Maybe a workable compromise would be to let people re-edit their previous contributions. Though I'm also about the tendency for large numbers of people to submit irrelevant material. I think that some sort of moderation might be in order, which begs the question - who should do the moderation? Slashdot-style moderation, at least, doesn't seem to work well - it favors those who comment early rather than those who submit the best comments. What you want to do is favor the contributions that summarize an issue and/or its resolution fairly, clearly, and succinctly; and then make the set of comments that do this, and cover the more important issues associated with an RFC, the ones that are the most visible. I think the Annotated CPAN example ( http://www.annocpan.org/) is near perfect for our needs: - The main text is visually distinguished from the annotations. - Annotations are visually near the relevant text, rather than appended at the end. - The main text cannot be changed. - Annotations can be freely added by anybody, it is trivial to open an account. - Users are identified but with no strong authentication. - One user can comment on another user's comment, but cannot change it. - There is some moderation behind the scenes (I haven't studied it, but it's essential in order to avoid spam). - There's an average of 1-2 comments a day, so a small number of moderators can handle the traffic. As a starting point, this might not be too bad, especially if the code is available and can be adapted (even if it is written in Perl, sigh). Though I think that anything of this nature is going to have to adapt over time as experience with it is gained. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
Keith Moore wrote: I think the Annotated CPAN example ( http://www.annocpan.org/) is near perfect for our needs: - The main text is visually distinguished from the annotations. - Annotations are visually near the relevant text, rather than appended at the end. - The main text cannot be changed. - Annotations can be freely added by anybody, it is trivial to open an account. - Users are identified but with no strong authentication. - One user can comment on another user's comment, but cannot change it. - There is some moderation behind the scenes (I haven't studied it, but it's essential in order to avoid spam). - There's an average of 1-2 comments a day, so a small number of moderators can handle the traffic. As a starting point, this might not be too bad, especially if the code is available and can be adapted (even if it is written in Perl, sigh). Though I think that anything of this nature is going to have to adapt over time as experience with it is gained. +1. The thing is that this is all deja-vu. Consider, we are talking about professional collaboration and there are many tools that help in this area which in short, emulated the older red-lining ideas of getting comments. Geez, I recall when we have a in/box box on our desktop and each morning new docs come in and others you were done red-lining went out. Or you had a distribution list attached to it, and you crossed your name out and the next person on the list is the one you sneaker net the document to. For our product, it started as online only, then slowly the users spread out, to offline, using POP3 then mailing list. At least with Exchange, NNTP and IMAP you were still online and single sourcing the data. Today, we still constantly battle trying to single source the offline with online. Something other vendors eventually learned too - i.e. Google. So with the IETF/IESG, you will have similar issues as well: - Initial I-D collaboration - Any WG mailing list collaboration - Any IETF/IETF PS preview collaboration - Any IETF/IETF LAST CALL collaboration - Any IETF/IETF TS collaboration My suggestion to first framework this with the I-D as an experimentation. I get my start with the I-D submissions and that email can have an URL to some site where we can begin the collaboration. for example, like this one that came in at 3:20pm EST today with this URL http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-15.txt changing it to: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-15 takes you to a more interesting page (IMO). I should be able to see all current comments at the bottom and also add a comment, all nicely displayed at the bottom. I agree with you that a commenter should be able to EDIT, DELETE its own comment but not others, only the AUTHOR or some other sysop can have that level of alteration. A history is needed though so that people can see where/why changes/deletions were made. Here is one idea for Fred Baker: I would donate our own package which does still continue to offer all the input portals we have today, but its windows based, and there are other simpler web based only packages that is 100% open source. Take an existing open source CMS package with a Topical framework, i.e. like PHPBBS or the very simple PHP package like SMF from http://www.simplemachines.org/smf. This last one is pretty flexible, simple and should work under any OS box. For each new I-D, automatically added as a new TOPIC where users can follow up and in this topic/blog style format. A CMS package is all that is needed that offers easy - User/Group profiles - Calendaring - voting and polling - Public vs Private messaging - EMAIL, Mailing list integration -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Wikis for RFCs
On Sep 16, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote: Again I would like to bring up the idea of every RFC having an associated wiki page(s). The goal here is to provide a way for implementors to add comments, annotations, clarifications, corrections etc to augment the RFCs. Whilst such commentary can often be found on IETF mailing lists after an RFC is published locating those and searching them can be tedious - plus the full history of discussion on various points is often not relevant to an implementor - all they need to know is what is the correct way to do it now. Doing something like this would obviously require some investment in additional infrastructure. There are also questions about how we would maintain the integrity of the information on the wiki pages, but I think those are things we can easily address. This is something that could be implemented on a volunteer basis as an experiment. If it worked, perhaps IETF could be convinced to take it over. Volunteer moderating of such a Wiki could easily lead to the wiki being of little or no value, and being an embarrassment to the IETF. Consider an RFC that might be construed as supporting the use of NATs on the Internet. Open commenting on the RFC could be fodder for certain people commenting about the applicability of the RFC because NATs Are Evil. There would then likely be counter-comments from people who feel that NATs Have Value. Such comments, if moderated, could be very valuable to an implementer who knows about the RFC but not the bigger picture; unmoderated comments would be no more useful than some of the permathreads on the WG list that created the RFC. Wikipedia is about the only example of working volunteer moderation, and even then, there are cabals that supported by the paid management. Few, if any, of the unmanaged wiki sites have long-lasting value. --Paul Hoffman ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Sep 16, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote: Again I would like to bring up the idea of every RFC having an associated wiki page(s). The goal here is to provide a way for implementors to add comments, annotations, clarifications, corrections etc to augment the RFCs. Whilst such commentary can often be found on IETF mailing lists after an RFC is published locating those and searching them can be tedious - plus the full history of discussion on various points is often not relevant to an implementor - all they need to know is what is the correct way to do it now. Doing something like this would obviously require some investment in additional infrastructure. There are also questions about how we would maintain the integrity of the information on the wiki pages, but I think those are things we can easily address. This is something that could be implemented on a volunteer basis as an experiment. If it worked, perhaps IETF could be convinced to take it over. Volunteer moderating of such a Wiki could easily lead to the wiki being of little or no value, and being an embarrassment to the IETF. Consider an RFC that might be construed as supporting the use of NATs on the Internet. Open commenting on the RFC could be fodder for certain people commenting about the applicability of the RFC because NATs Are Evil. There would then likely be counter-comments from people who feel that NATs Have Value. Such comments, if moderated, could be very valuable to an implementer who knows about the RFC but not the bigger picture; unmoderated comments would be no more useful than some of the permathreads on the WG list that created the RFC. Yes, all of those things are possible. By saying it was an experiment, I meant to imply that the results might or might not be favorable and something that the IETF wanted to encourage and support. My concern about having IETF do it right off the bat is that we really don't know how to do it and what it takes to make it work well. That's why some sort of experiment is indicated. By lending its support to such an experiment prematurely, IETF would risk more embarrassment than it would if the effort were started outside of IETF and without official backing. Having said that, I think that such a site would have a better chance of success if it were run by experienced and respected IETF participants, who shared IETF's goals and were in good communication with IETF leadership. OTOH, were IETF to endorse such an effort, I fear that IESG would want to impose control over it, and thus further distract IETF from its core goals. I also fear that there would be too much tendency to deliberate every aspect of the site in minute detail on the IETF list. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
Hi Paul, I strongly support the idea of wikis interlinked with RFCs. I'd like to offer two very successful examples, both much more relevant than Wikipedia: the PHP Manual (see for examplehttp://www.php.net/manual/en/function.date-parse.php), and the jQuery manual (e.g.http://api.jquery.com/bind/). In both cases these are managed as extended comments to the main text. I believe RFCs will need a more sophisticated solution, since they are obviously much larger than a manual page. Thanks, Yaron Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:06:21 -0700 From: Paul Hoffmanpaul.hoff...@vpnc.org To: IETF Discussionietf@ietf.org Subject: Wikis for RFCs Message-ID:e6915760-d4ae-4def-a660-4facdb7e2...@vpnc.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sep 16, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote: Again I would like to bring up the idea of every RFC having an associated wiki page(s). The goal here is to provide a way for implementors to add comments, annotations, clarifications, corrections etc to augment the RFCs. Whilst such commentary can often be found on IETF mailing lists after an RFC is published locating those and searching them can be tedious - plus the full history of discussion on various points is often not relevant to an implementor - all they need to know is what is the correct way to do it now. Doing something like this would obviously require some investment in additional infrastructure. There are also questions about how we would maintain the integrity of the information on the wiki pages, but I think those are things we can easily address. This is something that could be implemented on a volunteer basis as an experiment. If it worked, perhaps IETF could be convinced to take it over. Volunteer moderating of such a Wiki could easily lead to the wiki being of little or no value, and being an embarrassment to the IETF. Consider an RFC that might be construed as supporting the use of NATs on the Internet. Open commenting on the RFC could be fodder for certain people commenting about the applicability of the RFC because NATs Are Evil. There would then likely be counter-comments from people who feel that NATs Have Value. Such comments, if moderated, could be very valuable to an implementer who knows about the RFC but not the bigger picture; unmoderated comments would be no more useful than some of the permathreads on the WG list that created the RFC. Wikipedia is about the only example of working volunteer moderation, and even then, there are cabals that supported by the paid management. Few, if any, of the unmanaged wiki sites have long-lasting value. --Paul Hoffman ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
I don't see these ass Wikis but basically blog style flat display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially for the user (this way) upon user (not always) follow ups. A Wiki is more where you can change the main content and perhaps even the context. I don't think that is a good idea for RFCs. Yaron Sheffer wrote: Hi Paul, I strongly support the idea of wikis interlinked with RFCs. I'd like to offer two very successful examples, both much more relevant than Wikipedia: the PHP Manual (see for examplehttp://www.php.net/manual/en/function.date-parse.php), and the jQuery manual (e.g.http://api.jquery.com/bind/). In both cases these are managed as extended comments to the main text. I believe RFCs will need a more sophisticated solution, since they are obviously much larger than a manual page. Thanks, Yaron Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:06:21 -0700 From: Paul Hoffmanpaul.hoff...@vpnc.org To: IETF Discussionietf@ietf.org Subject: Wikis for RFCs Message-ID:e6915760-d4ae-4def-a660-4facdb7e2...@vpnc.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sep 16, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote: Again I would like to bring up the idea of every RFC having an associated wiki page(s). The goal here is to provide a way for implementors to add comments, annotations, clarifications, corrections etc to augment the RFCs. Whilst such commentary can often be found on IETF mailing lists after an RFC is published locating those and searching them can be tedious - plus the full history of discussion on various points is often not relevant to an implementor - all they need to know is what is the correct way to do it now. Doing something like this would obviously require some investment in additional infrastructure. There are also questions about how we would maintain the integrity of the information on the wiki pages, but I think those are things we can easily address. This is something that could be implemented on a volunteer basis as an experiment. If it worked, perhaps IETF could be convinced to take it over. Volunteer moderating of such a Wiki could easily lead to the wiki being of little or no value, and being an embarrassment to the IETF. Consider an RFC that might be construed as supporting the use of NATs on the Internet. Open commenting on the RFC could be fodder for certain people commenting about the applicability of the RFC because NATs Are Evil. There would then likely be counter-comments from people who feel that NATs Have Value. Such comments, if moderated, could be very valuable to an implementer who knows about the RFC but not the bigger picture; unmoderated comments would be no more useful than some of the permathreads on the WG list that created the RFC. Wikipedia is about the only example of working volunteer moderation, and even then, there are cabals that supported by the paid management. Few, if any, of the unmanaged wiki sites have long-lasting value. --Paul Hoffman ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote: I don't see these ass Wikis but basically blog style flat display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially for the user (this way) upon user (not always) follow ups. A Wiki is more where you can change the main content and perhaps even the context. I don't think that is a good idea for RFCs. I'm thinking in terms of a hybrid Wiki where the RFC content is static but the discussion is maintainable as a Wiki and can be visually associated with the RFC content. You'd also want the RFC content to be clearly distinguished from the discussion. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Fri 16 Sep 2011 03:22:08 PM EDT, Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote: I don't see these ass Wikis but basically blog style flat display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially for the user (this way) upon user (not always) follow ups. A Wiki is more where you can change the main content and perhaps even the context. I don't think that is a good idea for RFCs. I'm thinking in terms of a hybrid Wiki where the RFC content is static but the discussion is maintainable as a Wiki and can be visually associated with the RFC content. You'd also want the RFC content to be clearly distinguished from the discussion. Keith Something like the annotate POD feature for perl modules on CPAN? Example: Unannotated http://search.cpan.org/~timb/DBI-1.616/DBI.pm Annotated http://www.annocpan.org/~TIMB/DBI-1.616/DBI.pm -Andrew ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Andrew Feren wrote: On Fri 16 Sep 2011 03:22:08 PM EDT, Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote: I don't see these ass Wikis but basically blog style flat display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially for the user (this way) upon user (not always) follow ups. A Wiki is more where you can change the main content and perhaps even the context. I don't think that is a good idea for RFCs. I'm thinking in terms of a hybrid Wiki where the RFC content is static but the discussion is maintainable as a Wiki and can be visually associated with the RFC content. You'd also want the RFC content to be clearly distinguished from the discussion. Keith Something like the annotate POD feature for perl modules on CPAN? Example: Unannotated http://search.cpan.org/~timb/DBI-1.616/DBI.pm Annotated http://www.annocpan.org/~TIMB/DBI-1.616/DBI.pm Yes, something like that. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
My view since we do these user collaboration, group ware online hosting software for a Living and deal with this evolutionary ideas that always seem to be better but not always applicable. Realistically, it has to be single source and as a migration, I think it should be explored where the IETF links to the I-D have a user followup/comment systems ala the PHP example (but there are many others). For sure the I-D. For RFC, the Request For Comment still apply but not sure How Much more you want - some difference I think. The only main issue is the decision of membership vs anonymous input. That is always the main issue with any sort of group ware concept. The Author should be some responsibility (e.g. the Moderator of the input). The IETF can just supply the tool, the backend software for this. -- Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Andrew Feren wrote: On Fri 16 Sep 2011 03:22:08 PM EDT, Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote: I don't see these ass Wikis but basically blog style flat display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially for the user (this way) upon user (not always) follow ups. A Wiki is more where you can change the main content and perhaps even the context. I don't think that is a good idea for RFCs. I'm thinking in terms of a hybrid Wiki where the RFC content is static but the discussion is maintainable as a Wiki and can be visually associated with the RFC content. You'd also want the RFC content to be clearly distinguished from the discussion. Keith Something like the annotate POD feature for perl modules on CPAN? Example: Unannotated http://search.cpan.org/~timb/DBI-1.616/DBI.pm Annotated http://www.annocpan.org/~TIMB/DBI-1.616/DBI.pm Yes, something like that. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
Keith, I think we already have the basis for this with the tools already there when viewing an I-D, RFC via the tools.ietf.org url. For example, in the last I-D submission I got, the email message did not have this link (but it should): http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lodderstedt-oauth-revocation-03 and it has all the top menu items, including NITS. A relatively small plug and play experimental software change would add USER COMMENTS and it will be displayed at the bottom. This would be the simply migration change to start this - we call it for our own File Library system Follow up Comments but its the same model for a message follow up concept - the toughest part is the ergonomics, so the suggestion is to first do it as a flat blog like display just to get the framework. Someone can explore this today as an independent wrapper on some other site using the official tools.ietf.org url. Then the IETF can decide to implement it as an experiment. I would personally suggest to do it with I-D first. A few great benefits I see: - user interest, - faster corrections for author to consolidate, - measure it for an official WG proposal, - wider, single source input (although the WG would eventually accomplish this too). etc. I see a lot of synergism developing here if its taking serious and explored first with maybe I-D first using a simply user follow-up concept. Again, the only real battle if this is a membership concept for the IETF - I think it should be. Simple: Email Address: Password: Display name: Real Name: [optional] Use CAPTCHA input to hope avoid automated blasting. I have no problem if Anonymous input is decided to be allowed. Maybe that could be the author decision. The author should have ultimate control to deleted abusive input and when the follow up periods are over. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com hector wrote: My view since we do these user collaboration, group ware online hosting software for a Living and deal with this evolutionary ideas that always seem to be better but not always applicable. Realistically, it has to be single source and as a migration, I think it should be explored where the IETF links to the I-D have a user followup/comment systems ala the PHP example (but there are many others). For sure the I-D. For RFC, the Request For Comment still apply but not sure How Much more you want - some difference I think. The only main issue is the decision of membership vs anonymous input. That is always the main issue with any sort of group ware concept. The Author should be some responsibility (e.g. the Moderator of the input). The IETF can just supply the tool, the backend software for this. -- Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Andrew Feren wrote: On Fri 16 Sep 2011 03:22:08 PM EDT, Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote: I don't see these ass Wikis but basically blog style flat display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially for the user (this way) upon user (not always) follow ups. A Wiki is more where you can change the main content and perhaps even the context. I don't think that is a good idea for RFCs. I'm thinking in terms of a hybrid Wiki where the RFC content is static but the discussion is maintainable as a Wiki and can be visually associated with the RFC content. You'd also want the RFC content to be clearly distinguished from the discussion. Keith Something like the annotate POD feature for perl modules on CPAN? Example: Unannotated http://search.cpan.org/~timb/DBI-1.616/DBI.pm Annotated http://www.annocpan.org/~TIMB/DBI-1.616/DBI.pm Yes, something like that. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
