Subject: [Tools-discuss] RFC comment system

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:28:07 +0200

Hi,

a while ago there was a long thread on the IETF-discuss list about 
"wikis for RFCs". My own take on that ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69413.html) was 
that several projects benefit significantly from allowing the community 
to comment openly on specifications. One such example is the PHP manual, 
which is not bad in itself, but is greatly enhanced by numerous comments 
from the community.

I ended up developing such a system specifically for RFCs. It is very 
basic, and extremely rough around the edges. It is available at 
http://rfcpop.d.porticor.net:8000/ 
<http://lyx2rfc.d.porticor.net:8000/rfcpop/>. The code is available at 
https://github.com/yaronf/rfcpop.

I would appreciate people's comments and suggestions. It would be 
absolutely awesome if people join in developing the app to the point 
where it can be used by non-IETF regulars.

In case you were wondering, the technology used is Python/Django and 
JavaScript/JQuery.

Thanks,
     Yaron

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:06:06 -0600

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> a while ago there was a long thread on the IETF-discuss list about "wikis
> for RFCs". My own take on that (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69413.html) was that
> several projects benefit significantly from allowing the community to
> comment openly on specifications. One such example is the PHP manual, which
> is not bad in itself, but is greatly enhanced by numerous comments from the
> community.

I agree, a comment system for RFCs would be great to have.  It should
include links to errata, Internet-Drafts in the works for updates or
obsolescence of each RFC, I-D history, working group (possibly
concluded), IESG balloting (if relevant), and so on.

> I ended up developing such a system specifically for RFCs. It is very basic,
> and extremely rough around the edges. It is available at

It'd be nice if comments were viewable without having to login.

I'm not sure that this is exactly how I'd like RFC comments to be
handled.  A wiki wouldn't be quite right either though.  We may need
frames for this...

Nico
--

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:16:59 +0200

Hi Nico,

comments can be viewed without having to login. Go to 
http://rfcpop.d.porticor.net:8000/rfcpop/rfc/4041 and scroll down a bit.

The idea is that they are visually distinct from the running text, but 
still in-line.

Thanks,
	Yaron

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:00:58 -0600

> http://rfcpop.d.porticor.net:8000/rfcpop/rfc/4041 and scroll down a bit.

Ah, sorry I missed that.

> The idea is that they are visually distinct from the running text, but still
> in-line.

But not all comments should be in-line.  For example: general
comments, comments on the history of the RFC, and comments on future
updates.  For those I'd rather have a wiki.  I'd also like to have a
ticketing system.

Hmmm.  You know, Fossil is a VCS that includes a wiki and a ticketing
system...  we might be able to combine that with a tool like yours to
make in-line comments just updates (commits) to the HTML renderings of
RFCs and then combine that with the wiki and ticketing.  With a bit
more code we might be able to have several frames, one with the RFC,
one with the wiki, and one with a ticket search box.

Nico
--

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:21:51 +0200

In the discussion on ietf-discuss people raised some good objections to 
the idea of associating a wiki with each RFC. I can dig them up, but off 
the top of my head, people were worried about "edit wars" being used to 
drag WG arguments forever, where today they are put to rest as soon as 
the RFC is published.

But even if we do add a wiki-per-RFC (and I can see some benefits, too), 
I don't think that a ticketing system is appropriate. A ticketing system 
requires some level of accountability. If I open a ticket for a random 
RFC (e.g. RFC 793), can I expect anything to come out of it?

Thanks,
	Yaron

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:41:03 -0600

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> In the discussion on ietf-discuss people raised some good objections to the
> idea of associating a wiki with each RFC. I can dig them up, but off the top
> of my head, people were worried about "edit wars" being used to drag WG
> arguments forever, where today they are put to rest as soon as the RFC is
> published.

Sure, but anyone can publish whatever the heck they want anyways.  A
wiki could have a registration and even authorization requirements and
then be really useful for, for example.  A wiki would be a great place
to have tutorials, general introductions to a large topic, lists of
[and links to] implementations, implementor advice beyond that given
in the RFC(s), ...  I understand that policing wikis will add to the
burden of WG chairs and ADs, but we could arrange so that RFC authors
(where available) do most of the work.

> But even if we do add a wiki-per-RFC (and I can see some benefits, too), I
> don't think that a ticketing system is appropriate. A ticketing system
> requires some level of accountability. If I open a ticket for a random RFC
> (e.g. RFC 793), can I expect anything to come out of it?

To me this would be much like the errata process.  Anyone could create
a ticket, but the ticket will only be accepted if the issue is deemed
real by a suitable expert selected by the RFC-Editor or relevant AD.

Nico
--

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:55:05 +0200

Just to clarify my (possibly naive) view on this: long term, this should 
be as unofficial as other "tools" activities, with no new processes 
imposed on authors or the secretariat (Mr. Bradner, someone just opened 
a ticket for RFC 2119, do you want to approve it?).

The only real maintenance activity that cannot be avoided - but may be 
somewhat automated - is dealing with spam.

Thanks,
	Yaron

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:04:11 -0600

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Just to clarify my (possibly naive) view on this: long term, this should be
> as unofficial as other "tools" activities, with no new processes imposed on
> authors or the secretariat (Mr. Bradner, someone just opened a ticket for
> RFC 2119, do you want to approve it?).

Sure, but as with errata, someone will want to review some of these
things.  Alternatively we should just not have any such tools hosted
by the IETF (and also really not by IETF participants; blogging is one
things, but hosting a potentially popular tool that the IETF chooses
not to to avoid maintenance burdens will... cause the same maintenance
burdens).

> somewhat automated - is dealing with spam.

This can probably be helped by having a requirement that one have
posted some number of messages to IETF mailing lists in order to
register for the wiki.

Nico
--

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:39:36 -0800

> posted some number of messages to IETF mailing lists in order to
[...]

That sounds like a terrible idea.  When you want *less* spam, don't
create incentives that favour *more*.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:45:01 -0600

> create incentives that favour *more*.

We already control spam on the lists.  Therefore having been able to
post N messages/month over the last 12 months seems like a good proxy
for "not a spammer".

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:07:25 +0200

Most people who are implementing RFCs (or designing systems based on 
RFCs, or acquiring such systems) are not IETF insiders, and may never 
have posted to IETF lists. I think these are the folks we should tap for 
these comments, instead of the same old IETFers.

If this is successful, I would expect at least some authors to subscribe 
to a feed of their own RFCs, in order to get feedback "from the field".

Thanks,
	Yaron

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:14:07 -0600

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Most people who are implementing RFCs (or designing systems based on RFCs,
> or acquiring such systems) are not IETF insiders, and may never have posted
> to IETF lists. I think these are the folks we should tap for these comments,
> instead of the same old IETFers.

Fair enough.  We can probably have a system where edits are not
accepted automatically but some established IETFer needs to review
them.  It can't always be RFC authors (they may not be around) or WG
chairs (ditto) or past WG chairs (ditto).  It can be ADs but they're
overworked as it is.  Therefore it'd have to be a community.  The way
it could be done is that wiki updates are sent to the relevant list
for any given RFC (e.g., its [possibly concluded] WG's list).

I'm sure we could make this work.  I see a lot of value in this!

Nico
--