Subject: [perpass] Wiki for managing PPM reviews of existing RFCs

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 17:21:36 -0400

(I'm sending to both perpass and ietf-privacy for this announcement,
but follow-up should be only to ietf-privacy)

Greetings. At the London IETF we had a Monday lunch meeting to talk
about doing systematic reviews of existing RFCs. We finally have a
wiki page for tracking that activity. It is at
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/ppm-legacy-review/>.

We are using the Trac ticket system. If you have used tickets for
working group issues, it's essentially the same but with a few
different parameters. There are instructions on how to fill out a
ticket on the web page.

 If you were at the Monday lunch and announced an intention to working
on a particular set of RFCs, now there's a home for your reviews. If
you couldn't commit to doing reviews but want to do some, here is your
chance! (If you don't have a login on the wiki, it's easy to
register.) In both cases, please add a ticket when you _start_ your
review -- don't wait until you finish, people will want to know all
about it from the start.

Thanks,

Scott and Avri

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:25:16 -0700

> review -- don't wait until you finish, people will want to know all

I added a couple of tickets for the various DHCP RFC that I reviewed when
writing the DHCP draft. What is the process for picking new RFC to review?
Just pick one at random and write a provisional ticket in
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/ppm-legacy-review/wiki ?

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Jiankang Yao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:49:10 +0800

From: Scott Brim
Date: 2014-03-23 05:21
To: ietf-privacy; perpass
Subject: [perpass] Wiki for managing PPM reviews of existing RFCs

>https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/ppm-legacy-review/.
>
>

it is a good start. thanks.
since there are thousands of RFCs, it is better that they can be reviewd by category.
for example, based on the following category:
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/np.html 

Jiankang Yao

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 19:46:39 -0800

> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/np.html

I'm not sure about that - there are a lot of documents
defining protocols that have never been implemented or
deployed, and so on.  It seems likely to me that as this
process is starting up, people will tend to review
significant documents, which is what probably the best
place to start anyway.  As more documents are reviewed
there may be a need to become more systematic.  But
for now, I think the current situation is good.

Melinda

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:49:18 +0100

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:49:10AM +0800,
 Jiankang Yao <[email-masked]> 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...)

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:53:10 +0100

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 05:21:36PM -0400,
 Scott Brim <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 29 lines which said:

> We finally have a wiki page for tracking that activity. It is at

Trac has an issue:

Warning: The ticket has been created, but an error occurred while sending notifications: [Errno 111] Connection refused

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:53:54 +0000

(bcc'ing perpass and moving this to ietf-privacy which
we agreed was a better list for this)

> for now, I think the current situation is good.

I agree with Melinda. Let's get a body of work done
that people want to do or feel is important to do
and then we can organise that.

So jump in and review something.

S.

> 
> Melinda
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> perpass mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
>

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:22:45 -0400

> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/np.html

We want to make sure the essential RFCs are reviewed, and categories are a
good way to organize that if you know what categories to use. We don't have
enough experience yet to know what good categories would be -- we don't
know how many reviewers we will have our their interest areas. To start
with let's just get everyone doing reviews. We can organize them later,
once we get over a hundred.

Thanks... Scott

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:34:51 -0400

On Mar 24, 2014 5:53 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Warning: The ticket has been created, but an error occurred while sending
notifications: [Errno 111] Connection refused

Ok, I'll tell Henrik. He manually added a notification. Thanks.