Re: [Ietf-and-github] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 12/03/2020 à 16:20, Erik Kline a écrit :
> As someone else said, I think the BCP is not that working groups should 
> use github but rather that if they do chose to this documents BCP 
> considerations for how to do so.

Even then, nobody at IETF can recommend to use github.com.  Because it 
is IPv4 only.

A BCP documents the best common practice, and the best _current_ practice.

A very good current practice can be observed as it happens right now. 
It is a practice.

How is github.com used by people?

Is that practice ok?

It is ok, but it is not the best, at least because it is over IPv4 and 
not over IPv6.

How are people using github.tools.ietf.org?  I dont know, because it 
does not exist.  Lets build it, try it on IPv6, suggest it to people to 
use, and then look whether we can BCP it.

BCP github, is some theoretical concept that is not understood.

One more RFC with things in theory that are interpreted in many 
different ways?

Alex

> 
> (But I do think it's disappointing that github.com <http://github.com> 
> [and gitlab.com <http://gitlab.com>] seem to be IPv4-only in 2020.)
> 
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 8:12 AM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     I pragmatically say - I disagree with BCP github.com
>     <http://github.com> IPv4.
> 
>     I wait a bit and I might unregister from this group, even though I
>     recently gladly accepted the invitation to join.  Things move fast :-)
> 
>     Alex
> 
> 
>     Le 12/03/2020 à 16:05, Stewart Bryant a écrit :
>      > Pragmatism should alway trump perfection
>      >
>      > - Stewart
>      >
>      >> On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:23, Alexandre Petrescu
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     wrote:
>      >>
>      >> Hi,
>      >>
>      >> I do not understand - will this become a BCP even though github
>     is IPv4-only?
>      >>
>      >> I am asking, because if it is so, then I think I disagree.
>      >>
>      >> Alex
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> Le 12/03/2020 à 15:16, Alissa Cooper a écrit :
>      >>> WG:
>      >>> Based on discussion with Alvaro on the IESG telechat today, I
>     said I would take out the RFC Editor note about BCP 25 tomorrow if
>     no one from the WG objects. This document will then get its own BCP
>     number when it is published.
>      >>> Alissa
>      >>>> On Mar 12, 2020, at 8:40 AM, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>      >>>>
>      >>>> I am indifferent about this being part of BCP 25. Brian
>     suggested it so I added the note. I’m happy to remove the note if
>     necessary.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Alissa
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>> On Mar 11, 2020, at 4:39 PM, Alvaro Retana
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> On March 11, 2020 at 3:32:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> Brian:
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> Hi!
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>>>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >>>>>>> DISCUSS:
>      >>>>>>>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >>>>>>>
>      >>>>>>> This is a process DISCUSS. I don't believe the status of
>     this document as a
>      >>>>>>> BCP belonging to BCP 25 was discussed in the WG or with the
>     IETF community.
>      >>>>>>>
>      >>>>>>> The Charter for the git WG only explicitly mentions BCP 9:
>      >>>>>>>
>      >>>>>>> The documents produced by this group will not alter the
>     Internet Standards
>      >>>>>>> Process (BCP 9). They will describe how to work within it.
>     Whether working
>      >>>>>>> groups choose to use GitHub or the documented policies to
>     support their
>      >>>>>>> work will remain entirely at their discretion.
>      >>>>>>>
>      >>>>>>> However, including this document as a part of BCP 25 (IETF
>     Working Group
>      >>>>>>> Guidelines and Procedures) results in the interpretation
>     that it represents
>      >>>>>>> consensus on how WGs should proceed -- and not that the
>     decision "to use
>      >>>>>>> GitHub or the documented policies...[is]...entirely at
>     their discretion.."
>      >>>>>>
>      >>>>>> Would a sentence to that effect in the Abstract and
>     Introduction help?
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> It wouldn't hurt, but it also doesn't help with my issue:
>     having this
>      >>>>> document be part of BCP 25.
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> ....
>      >>>>>>> IOW, both (1) the process of reaching the conclusion that
>     this document
>      >>>>>>> belongs in BCP 25, and (2) the concept that this document
>     would be part of
>      >>>>>>> BCP 25, are the subject of my DISCUSS. I would like for the
>     IESG to discuss
>      >>>>>>> this topic.
>      >>>>>>
>      >>>>>> Have things changed? In the old days this question (which
>     BCP number?) was
>      >>>>>> typically left to the discretion of the RFC Editor, possibly
>     with a bit of
>      >>>>>> discussion with the AD. I certainly don't object to
>     community discussion, of
>      >>>>>> course (and we did do that in the case of BCP 101 recently).
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> No, I don't think things have changed.  In this case, the AD
>     added a
>      >>>>> note to the RFC Editor requesting them to "append this
>     document to BCP
>      >>>>> 25 at the time of publication."
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-git-using-github/writeup/
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> However, I believe that BCP 25 is a special case because it
>     applies
>      >>>>> directly to WG operation.  The intention of adding documents
>     to it
>      >>>>> should (at least) be clear and some discussion should exist.
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> Thanks!
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> Alvaro.
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>> _______________________________________________
>      >>>> Ietf-and-github mailing list
>      >>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
>      >>> _______________________________________________
>      >>> Ietf-and-github mailing list
>      >>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
>      >>
>      >> _______________________________________________
>      >> Ietf-and-github mailing list
>      >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
>      >
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ietf-and-github mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
>