[Ietf-and-github] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-git-using-github/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the work that went into this document. While I don't feel very
strongly about it, I tend to agree with the voices arguing for recharacterizing
this document as Informational. I will leave it to the sponsoring AD to handle
this issue as she sees fit.

Section 1.2:

   GitHub is a service operated at https://github.com/
   (https://github.com/).

The parenthetical seems unnecessary.

   GitHub is freely accessible on the open Internet,
   albeit currently only via IPv4.

One sincerely hopes that this second clause will age badly. Perhaps qualify it
with “at the time this document is published.” Alternately, remove the clause,
as it adds virtually nothing to the document.

Section 1.5:
   The words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" are
   used in this document.  It's not shouting; when they are capitalized,
   they have the special meaning defined in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174].

Please use the boilerplate from RFC 8174.

Section 3.2:
   Repositories for private documents MAY
   be kept private, but only where there is a specific reason for doing
   so.

This seems really odd, completely undetectable/unenforceable, and actually
harmful. It is common practice for editors to just keep their source local and
only submit the output of such source to the i-d repository; and that’s just
fine. This seems to say that such users are effectively forbidden to have their
source equally private but also effectively backed-up and revision-controlled
by one specific online service. It seems strictly better to allow and even
encourage this, to prevent a loss of data.