IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Wed, 11 March 2020 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
X-Original-To: ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8061D3A09A6 for <ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=UVb3iBsQ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=ky9vSqxI
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 7ijB3TJvWcZo for <ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4292D3A09D1 for <ietf-and-github@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA5C21C24 for <ietf-and-github@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:03:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:03:25 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh=R6RkA 10CiHIT4C6XFNZvoNglzJjyxSepzkGyY573oNo=; b=UVb3iBsQD4YM2eh2byArR 458qe9cbhHIANIBdmVKVSzfTJOiqH4HFT6wvlVltgBl/jMtZcJHI60iy1cis8G// vhvXHwTlItichUfO70O3bzRnKSxNcKbdMp+ekSB51w/LkULX1jPv425NYT7wRbRU U9YjNQZRv4cdNhtMFqHVBboXci0tj/tcE4QoQxJL6ne0G5rwr+Q9DxbbfFLHSw7A Rp7H4GuPH9dODlARV1Kg+447yLCz4OUIExQr2f5QdY7OWK/Tkt5N0Xe/sJ9PrJBU 138OuZN/cuuTuh4Jn7GhvhjekwmGVQKQuAo5XvGr2X5H9Pq+zx+zvOVJVI7ot0/x A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=R6RkA10CiHIT4C6XFNZvoNglzJjyxSepzkGyY573o No=; b=ky9vSqxI4pJb8/L/NEEj1wLTFBvhpd9r4ioToZPqdO0cfe7JoseIq3KSu NbrtWC8/7Jq7uXgQs+i2hxeuBSfvrOs4wlrpruDXZxDnHag8/R89A27YcONEZzNu Hh0Ga7AC1+ttbHWA+J6oEKvku8r4hRm8T20tolz4BbI1RECzSjhH3st6HLQu4VG8 UnEWDOaupovmHRywt0GSt7+hJ14qLaoV5rLTyDp8X1pFVlpJ5wHlq7UunpRaSZdH VCmXXG9DHSx2F29081UWas6vGwcQDmgAZ1KVYhYU0Hg0OgqI09mvRKwJjqHrAIug vcmtdzL6IMZjQyv8gn5nWiQXGUm/Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:PW5pXvX8KVWx-jKtuzfvCQHxfxRNLlDFR4OD4-vL4kNE_K0QGBoYCQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedruddvgedgudekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesth hqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehl ohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrg hmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:PW5pXr3HJUVHsw8gByV9_OHkHH8gqcQxg5l8Df0rV6hT4oVHhZYLpA> <xmx:PW5pXmbGcCwH2c3i24tqLXkGLdaj27PC1mFw5qG6e6BtrPPibHN6NA> <xmx:PW5pXuomS6eQJ9t5UFIoLzaBlRC37LdLYCo2wLecw2-ECR7phS_TTQ> <xmx:PW5pXgfc7Hrb7W8JIwD5ZM0s1RI61m_aVYwFSd3yPPXMgaH_9SSU4A>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id E52B4E00B2; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:03:24 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-991-g5a577d3-fmstable-20200305v3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <27fd774b-b8cd-4454-81d2-36c44d497574@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <894D3C1A-ED57-44D5-8099-92C221258C99@akamai.com>
References: <158386231480.15427.9414945774814479191@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABcZeBP76vZW9ob9pX5SQYvoemVPmNz-xj-MShht5TWO0RGLdA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJFRgFAv8V-Ubfniwm8z=EhE5hZ8TZSvZmOX_DYixA8pQ@mail.gmail.com> <A3D59DA1-47AE-4F1F-A215-61EEC398896A@cooperw.in> <CAHw9_iKB1-42Fk1b+a3O4PBbwWtrbACzR47FirEVj7L94hntEg@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJJ5NruVKYs5TqKzcvbAfJkgaxU5usjAuRvKd_OUSnJRLw@mail.gmail.com> <3B1EB2AE-EB48-48FF-BA20-DBB5527ECF1E@cooperw.in> <894D3C1A-ED57-44D5-8099-92C221258C99@akamai.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:03:05 +1100
From: "Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: ietf-and-github@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/EDd4MiE8NiQFU7B2ieAELN6q2ws>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-and-github] =?utf-8?q?Warren_Kumari=27s_Discuss_on_draft-i?= =?utf-8?q?etf-git-using-github-05=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: ietf-and-github@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of using GitHub in IETF activities, particularly for Working Groups" <ietf-and-github.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-and-github>, <mailto:ietf-and-github-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-and-github/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-and-github@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-and-github-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github>, <mailto:ietf-and-github-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 23:03:35 -0000

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, at 06:41, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >    Personally I would rather see this document switch to informational and move forward with publication. I don’t think the label “BCP” makes much of a difference, the point is just to document practices to make it easier for IETF WGs to get their work done. I would be curious what the WG thinks. 
>   
> We do think this is the best ways to do things, but if the BCP label 
> has people tied up in knots, it's better to publish than delay and be 
> right.  I can live with informational.

What I value is getting consensus on some best practices, that I hope will eventually become common.  An informational document achieves that goal as effectively as a BCP.

Hell, if it weren't for the fact that publication as RFC is a codification of community consensus, this entire process would have been unnecessary.  I could have just done more presentations to WG chairs.  But I value that consensus.  Which is why I'm taking the time to deal with objections of the sort that Warren raises.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email