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
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,
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
-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
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
+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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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;
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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):
33 matches
Mail list logo
