RFC's metadata: add fields for links to workgroup resources #14

New Issue

stiag · 2022-09-14T21:53:07Z

stiag commented

2022-09-14 21:53:07 +00:00

Reasoning

@southerntofu in #10 proposes adding fields in RFC's metadata that specify where contribution can be made. That info can be used to create «Contribute here» links automatically.

While @southerntofu talks about standards in development and links to material, I see benefits of linking to both place of development and communication channels for both drafts and accepted standards.

Even for accepted RFCs, it would be nice to have a link to a mailing list or IRC channel where authors usually dwell.

Technical

@southerntofu uses

contribute-url: <URI>
contribute-type: git|mercurial|etherpad

I can suggest names discussion:, workgroup:, contribute:, contributions-url:. As for me, discussion looks the best. Probably there's even more appropriate wording.

Example

I would suggest following format:

discussion:
- email: user-1@example.org
- sip: user-2@example.org
- "https://workgroup.example.org/rfc0/talk"

Specs proposition

discussion is a list.
Items can be string or dictionary.

I'm not sure how colons in https://example.org will be treated by different parsers without quotes.

Protocol name can be a registered scheme. Not sure what about not well-known services.

Probably, items can be of 3 forms:

item is a string, string contains scheme

- "mailto:user-1@example.org"
- "sip:user-2@example.org`"

item is a dictionary, key is a scheme name:
```
- email: user-1@example.org
- sip: user-2@example.org
```
(this one is easier for people, but less practical for programming)

item is a dictionary, type of resource specified in a separate value

- address: user-1@example.org
  protocol: email
- address: user-2@example.org
  protocol: OStatus/gnusocial
  description: casual talks, drop us a note

I believe there are better names for keys. I'm not sure about "OStatus/gnusocial"

If accepted

Explanations should be packed in small and clear description and added to RFC0: RFC Format and Semantics

## Reasoning @southerntofu in #10 proposes adding fields in RFC's metadata that specify [where contribution can be made](issues/10#issuecomment-2084). That info can be used to create «Contribute here» links automatically. While @southerntofu talks about standards in development and links to material, I see benefits of linking to both place of development and communication channels for both drafts and accepted standards. Even for accepted RFCs, it would be nice to have a link to a mailing list or IRC channel where authors usually dwell. ## Technical @southerntofu uses ``` contribute-url: <URI> contribute-type: git|mercurial|etherpad ``` I can suggest names `discussion:`, `workgroup:`, `contribute:`, `contributions-url:`. As for me, `discussion` looks the best. Probably there's even more appropriate wording. ## Example I would suggest following format: ``` discussion: - email: user-1@example.org - sip: user-2@example.org - "https://workgroup.example.org/rfc0/talk" ``` ## Specs proposition `discussion` is a list. Items can be string or dictionary. I'm not sure how colons in `https://example.org` will be treated by different parsers without quotes. Protocol name can be a [registered scheme](http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml). Not sure what about not well-known services. Probably, items can be of 3 forms: - item is a string, string contains scheme ``` - "mailto:user-1@example.org" - "sip:user-2@example.org`" ``` - item is a dictionary, key is a scheme name: ``` - email: user-1@example.org - sip: user-2@example.org ``` (this one is easier for people, but less practical for programming) - item is a dictionary, type of resource specified in a separate value ``` - address: user-1@example.org protocol: email - address: user-2@example.org protocol: OStatus/gnusocial description: casual talks, drop us a note ``` I believe there are better names for keys. I'm not sure about "OStatus/gnusocial" ## If accepted Explanations should be packed in small and clear description and added to [RFC0: RFC Format and Semantics](src/branch/master/rfcs/rfc0.md)

khuxkm commented

2022-09-20 16:36:16 +00:00

This would be a good idea; however, nobody seems to be making RFCs at all right now. If people show interest in this idea again, I would definitely be willing to consider adding collaboration metadata.

khuxkm referenced this issue

2022-09-20 16:44:52 +00:00

[low] RFC0 title, RFCs titles #15

stiag referenced this issue

2022-09-20 20:37:32 +00:00

Ideas: tool to synchronize live pad version and description in git issue #17

stiag referenced this issue

2022-09-20 20:39:27 +00:00

Ideas: about ideas for RFCs and in general #18

Sign in to join this conversation.