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

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 12 March 2020 23:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA243A084C; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id agjWZXsvSPeY; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43793A084A; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 02CNESWU028231 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1584054880; x=1584141280;; bh=P1XHJzseYxmptq+7AtsvWvsopnKWcw3g8/tGWNpB9UY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Hnh7dtOZgCr/iQnjo6XZNfOiUNkVFcaGoiSMsaOwR5FTwJaZGNFp1UtT1M3HQn95f D18LZNxdahiJBLHLu9Jq5syjBNqPTtNjsOKrWiFmsJMonOCN1xw4+f2wKM7BxaXU1B d8Rh+YegAYfLS1FmuaPdncoVGV45QUIacQy/M7qA=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:14:08 -0700
To: Alissa Cooper <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-and-github] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:14:51 -0000

Hi Alissa,
At 07:16 AM 12-03-2020, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>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.

I read RFC 4858.  Paragraph 3.c states that "The Document Shepherd 
then queries the ID Tracker to collect the remaining DISCUSS and 
COMMENT items raised against the document.  The Document Shepherd 
analyzes these items and initializes contact with the ADs who have 
placed them."  I did not see that being done for 
draft-ietf-git-using-github.  Paragraph 2.b states that "If the 
Responsible Area Director has identified issues with 
a          document that must be addressed before IESG Evaluation can 
commence, he or she sends a full evaluation to the Document Shepherd 
and SHOULD also enter the review into the ID Tracker."  The authors 
of draft-ietf-git-using-github did not respond to any of the Last 
Call comments (excluding the reviews from the directorates).

The Last Call ended on March 3.  There is some disagreement over 
whether the document should be a "BCP".  I assumed that it would be 
resolved through discussion with what is sometimes referred to as the 
"IETF Community".  My reading of your message is that it is for the 
working group to decide about that.

There was a GitHub disruption in 2018 which had an impact on IETF 
work.  As such, it is neither an unforeseen incident nor some 
hypothetical scenario.

As for the changes after the closing of the Last Call, I see a bunch 
of "pull" requests to the external web site.  There isn't any 
explanation on the Working Group mailing about the issues and how 
they were addressed.

I would like to raise an objection on the handing of 

S. Moonesamy