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 perhaps even
the context. I don't think 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), and the
jQuery manual (e.g.http://api.jquery.com/bind/). In both cases these are
managed as extended comments to the main text. I believe RFCs will need
a more sophisticated solution, since they are obviously much larger than
a manual page.
Thanks,
Yaron
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:06:21 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman<paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx>
To: IETF Discussion<ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Wikis for RFCs
Message-ID:<E6915760-D4AE-4DEF-A660-4FACDB7E22D4@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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.
Wikipedia is about the only example of working volunteer moderation, and
even then, there are cabals that supported by the paid management. Few,
if any, of the unmanaged wiki sites have long-lasting value.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf