IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique

Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> Mon, 05 October 2015 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <tyoshino@google.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D441A1A7B for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 05:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 bDByKglEGcX3 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 05:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x229.google.com (mail-oi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90C321A1A7C for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 05:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oiev17 with SMTP id v17so89736839oie.1 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 05:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=yjJWVyXtoWz4CZFYE+eOkDq90pqrRwImqGF0p8G+zd8=; b=OxEl5SozZckMxB4Dgq7rNdsmXLKkUsAS8Mo7xBjJK6sFeTuwRxG07gWt/muVQuITak gr3fyma7hSD4Me1tNJvqMsdaO8vms2oM8O8eqgnUAHqYpPw8NtUeSumZsGmBKUe/nPk7 pGCXmkMNVld5NQZBCJHhT3lDNdIyXTnsTL1fvTao6gCo2juNJ5GE/SKmAxG3g8Y1eEPV fFSCoiShK6wzZM0T08jKCYlMmNMzvQpTY3jKGxJIoyvd8rhDgCGxSqFYJXlFqvA/HQEa xxK2L1NJw1l41ejoootSXzy3OCIosPr+V909f0nQSo/Qt90OyCJ+k/MzgsENJkqsS0Yp T+Cw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=yjJWVyXtoWz4CZFYE+eOkDq90pqrRwImqGF0p8G+zd8=; b=Zr+dhEKfz7J4FIjv8fBs38eVxm0IR617lJ/0to8K4lze8yhzejwS7BBepGiVMhUUCU dOgj8KE4ifvIo2fnzStU1NUsXv8F4ZlO/csXKRFedyssT9eVEX1pTGqlBLikWYxfQB2h Fe1HYdxvk31CqdEoCLuV18c9wuQWsUr50JE1Dw/NJtr81e3W3Y0kBRWhIDaG6DlkqRki J3493r8USa/TieogofjOhaKRzG3Ryc80JX2n7/u0VqEPHif8GXA7P/weP+ZvZwVzi433 SXso4meI3gTo2coaN1UJC2mfYtJJfq1INloc82KQx6EdCiqKVW2V3iztlFEH8kCa0GBR 3nQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmQ+D8DVIXexYwkTAs4livg018OZ45drXk8FPB/9iDPu4gfx9BHnUJht0A81Fb2LosDR5kw
X-Received: by 10.202.104.222 with SMTP id o91mr16387233oik.49.1444049442898; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 05:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.221.87 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 05:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5612328C.7030401@tavendo.de>
References: <CAM70yxD9UQ5ZS6aotOqkq9Fz3Hj5LE8V+b=+hw4goZqY62fP9g@mail.gmail.com> <5612328C.7030401@tavendo.de>
From: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 21:50:23 +0900
Message-ID: <CAH9hSJZw9oMRj3hXTzy8texWr=ZCJNZmOrFqcY-QmMxMX3MHwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tobias Oberstein <tobias.oberstein@tavendo.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140fa4415549a05215af653"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/RSPH-ggAtZzFXNK1pEuSihD15Tg>
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hybi/>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:50:47 -0000

What I saw on HTTP/2 standardization was:
- pull requests were reviewed and accepted at GitHub.
- the co-editor, Martin, published snapshot at IETF data tracker
periodically.
- questions were raised at the GitHub issue tracker and were taken by the
editor
- but the chair, Mark, guided people to the WG list when non-trivial
discussion happened at GitHub
https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/612#issuecomment-57949294

HyBi may also have to follow the 4th point, I guess. Not sure.

Takeshi

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Tobias Oberstein <
tobias.oberstein@tavendo.de> wrote:

> sorry, accidently hit send .. here is my full reply.
>
> > I started reviewing the WAMP RFC draft. I wanted to be able to add
>
>> comments to the text, annotate changes for fixing spelling/grammar, and
>> annotate changes for improving the English prose. My proposed changes
>> are too numerous to be done via email on a mailing list. I figured the
>> best way to proceed was to simply annotate changes in my own GitHub fork
>> of the WAMP RFC. If there is a better workflow for collaboration on the
>> same Markdown document, please let me know.
>>
>
> I think what you touch here is a general, important question: workflow.
>
> Historically, we've been using a GitHub based workflow for collaborating
> on the WAMP spec: GH issues and discussion there plus pull-requests to
> merge in changes.
>
> This works quite well .. eg. one can review (and comment) on your
> changes easily:
>
>
> https://github.com/ecorm/wamp-proto/commit/7b6c3a75a031e113cdd81931866fce0ff7d6cabf
>
> Doing the same via a strict mail based workflow seems harder.
>
> @Salvatore
> Are there IETF rules on _how_ working on a RFC draft must happen?
> Any guidelines from your side on how we should proceed?
>
> Cheers,
> /Tobias
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email