Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sheffer-ietf-rfc-annotations-00.txt

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:04:52 +0300

Hi,

I have posted a short draft that proposes to open the "tools" version of 
RFCs up, by allowing readers can annotate them. The goal is to provide 
us with feedback and encourage discussion of these documents outside the 
"walls" of the IETF.

If you will, this is another way to reach out to the broader community, 
as this recent draft [1] suggests.

I would appreciate your comments!

Thanks,
	Yaron

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ietf-trends-and-observations-00

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for 
draft-sheffer-ietf-rfc-annotations-00.txt
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 10:55:47 -0700
From: [email-masked]
To: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-sheffer-ietf-rfc-annotations-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Yaron Sheffer and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-sheffer-ietf-rfc-annotations
Revision:	00
Title:		Requesting Comments: Enabling Readers to Annotate RFCs
Document date:	2016-06-25
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		6
URL: 
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sheffer-ietf-rfc-annotations-00.txt
Status: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-ietf-rfc-annotations/
Htmlized: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-ietf-rfc-annotations-00

Abstract:
    RFCs were initially intended as, literally, requests for comments.
    Since then, they have turned into standards documents, with a
    peculiar process to report errors and a highly onerous process to
    actually have the RFC modified/republished.  Non-IETF participants
    are typically unaware of any way to provide feedback to published
    RFCs, other than direct email to the listed authors.  This is very
    different from the way many web specifications are developed today
    and arguably leads to the value of published RFCs diminishing over
    time.  This document proposes an experiment to remedy this situation
    through the deployment of web annotations.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Leonard Rosenthol <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 13:02:23 +0000

As an experiment, this seems perfectly reasonable.  (not sure what the “shipping” solution would look like – but can’t hurt anything to try out)

Leonard

On 6/25/16, 2:04 PM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Yaron Sheffer" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks,
	Yaron

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Abstract:

The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 08:20:37 +0300

Hi Leonard,

I think an initial "shipping" solution would be mostly around identity: 
allowing users to register with their IETF or some other, federated 
identity instead of having to register with an external service.

Thanks,
	Yaron

---

From: Leonard Rosenthol <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:17:32 +0000

And that that IETF would run the server and thus “own” the comments, would also seem to be reasonable as well.

We would also need to reconcile the various formats – in case someone commented on the PDF and another person onteh HTML – you’d want to see both.

Leonard

On 6/27/16, 1:20 AM, "Yaron Sheffer" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Leonard,

Thanks,
	Yaron