IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is better -- why are we so shy?

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 07 March 2017 04:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A8EB129AEC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 20:07:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 CwsMrIwzSLd9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 20:07:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CABB129AE6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 20:07:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id o4so75044600ywd.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 20:07:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=S4bshWtR3VSD9pqYmPCOW5aXmfs2w1ZKHtOio3OsS/M=; b=helM6LSwOLUVm8yTvGaUS3UQtfSpN4FAuD6NK4LpW3cs5F4xoDdqSVbNjshT7aE0+H dg8rdNkUYEKw+5x+M1s2rqFWnjuS/KqBOVP7qRt0+7PUITWas5/R1Y3VRgCzX330o5fS Qogj/PxW/pcVyPfr5C/3P8O3MB2bHpGwISN5MCPt0vjGY02Bw9mC/9oZGjYd0CObcIiw 8n4rXo14plSG+tDmC6hv585hn56Ld558DuMS8Lty6TZxEqyCjnvMXWDHVArtVK2oh6yZ 3rMqzP1NMYwjVmNZhaLNkgIkjvhXBFCIfgfFJRBzVZa4+dyIpJlc0TVb4ZcDH7qbV5PO ryYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=S4bshWtR3VSD9pqYmPCOW5aXmfs2w1ZKHtOio3OsS/M=; b=IDzgst99XEp0lw27/f2VO0mST5yMa0lAyQ3HX96j7fYAz81p5BjGkjSPP7gm9j5zzO iQXRT1jhXl4dLCR7Mx+PQvt1xD37QcLsTKxf49YFMrqg5mYnxV1FeiUlf2jYzzfxyzUG 7XtScfffttkRq9AzO1ZRaL92KK1VADEYp7vcSVZWFwnOXQtlna25u/9VMzt1dW5ZwC2R Ylryewf/ObCCWkEGOJf5AQQvJcd/LfVfvLTrDI2hUDcKChpvRGqA8pZa9Cg8cOhEvvfL IWF84dqWmUXQggEzITxlEcrwTxP4zyevnsaG+ZvM6IQb2Pdulc0bo+ZY7vEn06Upwk0y 99Zg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lrgmwpN2eOpKjwWrG01JG49mjQgs2jblFFzzZL/Ogz3lGPuNhpoHzdSUitVxX6PO0ngjCagRLyy5VQ9g==
X-Received: by 10.129.152.22 with SMTP id p22mr15519709ywg.276.1488859654591; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 20:07:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.154.210 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 20:06:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <f2203a9d-595e-19cd-a7b9-2ccaa814f8f9@gmail.com>
References: <14476.1488384266@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CAOdDvNo0x9mVeqc9a5yGbB6yKDnrQVgoKfq_Q8HSfpFv1BmJ=A@mail.gmail.com> <f2203a9d-595e-19cd-a7b9-2ccaa814f8f9@gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 20:06:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPH6Y+EdbSfPMH-Rs_k5ZDwKb=13ZOGcWbi_TYJpdpsBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is better -- why are we so shy?
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0b8fb4d52a8c054a1c2660"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/N_zTeStR2AdvKJ2uJ0-hIeEUtxA>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 04:07:36 -0000

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not arguing against updating data tracker more often - just saying
> this
> > 'editor's draft' convention can work very well between official revisions
> > no matter the cadence a WG chooses.
>
> The details of that discussion probably belong on ietf-and-github@ietf.org
> ,
> but I must point out that this way of working *excludes* from the
> discussion WG participants who don't grok github. Substantial issues
> need to be discussed on the mailing list and substantial (non-typo)
> revisions need to be posted as I-Ds.
>

Well, it's hard to know what to make of this without knowing what you
mean by "substantial" but an active draft takes literally hundreds of PRs
in its lifetime with perhaps half of those being non-typos. We could of
course gateway every PR merge to an IETF draft push. Is that what you're
looking for?

It seems to me that some of the benefit of having discrete draft revisions
is that they represent coherent checkpoints, but you totally lose that if
you treat each commit or merged PR as a co-equal revision.

-Ekr


>     Brian
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email