Re: [Ietf-and-github] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alissa, hi Paul

> On 12. Mar 2020, at 13:37, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mirja,
> 
>> On Mar 10, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Okay, thanks for clarifying this. However this status and intention is not well reflected in the current text in the document and I think a revision is needed to avoid confusion. It's not only the paragraph below but also other parts, especially where it talks about options to ingrate in the datatracker.
> 
> Paul has made these changes: https://github.com/ietf-gitwg/draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration/pull/16/files

Thanks for this change but I think there would be more. First I suggest to also remove the pointer in the abstract for list discussion (but I guess that could also be done by the RFC editor but as you do edits anyway). But then there are also more things that could be clarified, e.g.sentences like

"This document proposes that there be a facility in the IETF Datatracker… "

Sentences like this makes it difficult to understand what this document actually only “proposes” and what’s the process that is specified that will be applied in future. As I said earlier, tying this documents and its procedures too close to what is offered in the datatracker makes it unclear. Maybe you can sepcify the processes (normatively) first without relating it to any interface or function in the datatracker and then later have a section to described that would be needed in the datatracker to support this process (maybe even in the appendix) or even better wait until the datatracker changes are implemented and then publish this document (because that will age much better).

> 
>> 
>> Also if this document is meant document the practice as to be applied, it should also be BCP and use normatively language. But then probably most of the text in draft-ietf-git-using-github in section 2 (and some of section 3) could be moved into this document because otherwise we will end up having this specified normatively twice.
> 
> The sentiment on draft-ietf-git-using-github seems to be leaning towards informational, so I think it’s better to keep both of them informational.


draft-ietf-git-using-github is BCP. And it has a lot of normative text in it (mainly section 2 and some parts in 3 as well) that is fully redundant with content of this draft.

Mirja



> 
> Alissa
> 
>> 
>> Mirja
>> 
>> 
>>> On 10. Mar 2020, at 13:55, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 10, 2020, at 8:51 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Alissa,
>>>> 
>>>> This is not what the document says here (and also in the abstract):
>>>> 
>>>> "   The document is meant to spur discussion in the IETF community.  If
>>>> there proves to be rough consensus in the community in support of the
>>>> proposals in this document, the functional requirements would need to
>>>> be discussed with the IETF Tools Team and the IETF Secretariat, who
>>>> would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein.”
>>>> 
>>>> Or should this have been removed? 
>>> 
>>> Yes, sorry for not catching that. I think we can just remove this.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Is the intention to let the secretariat provide these function on publication? If so, we should probably request changes to the tool team before publication…?
>>> 
>>> Yep, the tools team is already working on this and the secretariat is aware.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe it is more appropriate to not discuss the tooling issue and concrete datatracker change in the RFC-to-be but only document the process as to be performed by the chairs and secretariat?
>>>> 
>>>> Mirja
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 10. Mar 2020, at 13:34, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Mirja,
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2020, at 6:30 AM, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>>> draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-06: Discuss
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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-github-wg-configuration/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To be honest I don't fully understand the point of this document. It seem like
>>>>>> this document is supposed to be the basis for more discussion, however, I
>>>>>> thought that's what we have the wg for. So when and how do we come to a final
>>>>>> decision if we want to implement the proposed changes?
>>>>> 
>>>>> This document specifies the administrative processes and conventions we will use. Further discussion of the changes (other than minor tweaks here and there) is not expected.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Alissa 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> And what would we do in
>>>>>> that case - take this document and republish? Why can't we make the decision
>>>>>> first and then publish something? In short, I think it would be important that
>>>>>> the document also describes what the next steps are and the triggers to move on!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> COMMENT:
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Other questions/comments:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1) Sec 2.3:
>>>>>> "There should likely be an API to specify that there were personnel changes."
>>>>>> Inline with the comment in the shepherd write-up, I find this sentence really
>>>>>> unclear. I'm not even sure where the API should be (datatracker or GitHub) and
>>>>>> what is should do?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2) Sec 2.5:
>>>>>> "Creating a new repository for an individual draft"
>>>>>> This section indicated that also individual drafts could be maintained within
>>>>>> the official wg organization. I'm not sure if that is practical or desirable:
>>>>>> Which individual docs should the chairs allow repos for and which not? There
>>>>>> can be quite a lot of draft in some groups.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3) Also sec 2.5:
>>>>>> "   As an incremental step, this document proposes that there be a
>>>>>> facility in the Datatracker interface to allow an administrator of an
>>>>>> ietf-wg-<wgname> organization to request the creation of a new
>>>>>> repository within that organization for a single document."
>>>>>> For -00 version you usually want to have a repo before you submit it to the
>>>>>> datatracker. So a button on the datatracker page of the draft does not seems
>>>>>> too useful...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 4) Sec 2.6:
>>>>>> "At the time of this writing this feature was under development."
>>>>>> Wasn't there always/for a long time already a feature where you can add link to
>>>>>> external pages?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>