[Gendispatch] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-update-tag
Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Fri, 13 August 2021 12:03 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585A83A15D6 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 05:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X6DwHAy9F_xZ for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 05:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDAC43A15D7 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 05:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p200300dee73ba5001c66f60b32758e72.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e73b:a500:1c66:f60b:3275:8e72]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1mEVu3-00082V-SO; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:03:11 +0200
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:03:10 +0200
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <BD1DFC5C-CE5A-451F-9BB1-8B746FC135B9@kuehlewind.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1628856203;a5bedcf9;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1mEVu3-00082V-SO
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/P5rbX6ZP6hM6o8jKp0BalovuG6A>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 05:23:01 -0700
Subject: [Gendispatch] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-update-tag
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:03:25 -0000
Hi all, Based on the latest discussion at the gendispatch meeting, I’m moving this discussion back to the rfc-interest mailing list (with gendispatch in bbc only for this initial information). Also based on the discuss at the gendispatch meeting, I opened a couple of issues on GitHub: #13 Run this as an experiment or propose as BCP? https://github.com/mirjak/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/issues/13 #14 Limit to IETF stream for now? https://github.com/mirjak/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/issues/14 #15 Do we need "see also”? https://github.com/mirjak/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/issues/15 #16 How many tags to use? https://github.com/mirjak/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/issues/16 Please klick on these links to see a bit more description for each issue. Feel free to comment on GitHub or here by email. If you reply by email, if possible please reply separately per issue and adjust the subject line accordingly. The impression I got from the meeting, is that many/most people agree that there is _a_ problem but there is a lot of different views how to address it (see issue #16 above). I don’t think there is one best solution at this point and as such this draft is proposing one of them as a way forward. However, given there is no clear single path forward I also got the impression that people would be more happy with starting an experiment rather than picking one approach and go for BCP right away. How the experiment might exactly look like needs a bit more work (see issue #13), however, if people think that's the right way forward, I'm happy to work on more details. If we run this an experiment, I think it actually could be nice to start it now (and potentially only for the IETF stream; see issue #14) and then reevaluate as soon as the new RFC editor model and another discussion venue for these kind of works is in place. Please let us know if you have any thoughts and provide input on these issues by email or on GitHub! Mirja
- [Gendispatch] Next steps for draft-kuehlewind-upd… Mirja Kuehlewind