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
