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):
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lodderstedt-oauth-revocation-03
and it has all the top menu items, including NITS.
A relatively small plug and play "experimental" software change would
add "USER COMMENTS" and it will be displayed at the bottom. This
would be the simply migration change to start this - we call it for
our own File Library system "Follow up Comments" but its the same
model for a message follow up concept - the toughest part is the
ergonomics, so the suggestion is to first do it as a flat "blog" like
display just to get the framework.
Someone can explore this today as an independent wrapper on some other
site using the official tools.ietf.org url. Then the IETF can decide
to implement it as an experiment. I would personally suggest to do it
with I-D first.
A few great benefits I see:
- user interest,
- faster corrections for author to consolidate,
- measure it for an official WG proposal,
- wider, single source input (although the WG would
eventually accomplish this too).
etc.
I see a lot of synergism developing here if its taking serious and
explored first with maybe I-D first using a simply user follow-up concept.
Again, the only real battle if this is a membership concept for the
IETF - I think it should be. Simple:
Email Address:
Password:
Display name:
Real Name: [optional]
Use CAPTCHA input to hope avoid automated blasting.
I have no problem if Anonymous input is decided to be allowed. Maybe
that could be the author decision. The author should have ultimate
control to deleted abusive input and when the follow up periods are over.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
hector wrote:
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 the IETF links to the I-D have a user
followup/comment systems ala the PHP example (but there are many
others). For sure the I-D. For RFC, the "Request For Comment" still
apply but not sure "How Much" more you want - some difference I think.
The only main issue is the decision of "membership" vs "anonymous"
input. That is always the main issue with any sort of group ware
concept. The Author should be some responsibility (e.g. the Moderator
of the input).
The IETF can just supply the tool, the backend software for this.
--
Keith Moore wrote:
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 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.
I'm thinking in terms of a hybrid Wiki where the RFC content is
static but the discussion is maintainable as a Wiki and can be
visually associated with the RFC content. You'd also want the RFC
content to be clearly distinguished from the discussion.
Keith
Something like the annotate POD feature for perl modules on CPAN?
Example:
Unannotated
http://search.cpan.org/~timb/DBI-1.616/DBI.pm
Annotated
http://www.annocpan.org/~TIMB/DBI-1.616/DBI.pm
Yes, something like that.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf