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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 13 March 2020 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 9C8F93A131A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 M3tfOZGQItLj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3C083A1321 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 02D7unpA047517; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:56:49 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id CED4A202180; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:56:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C083920207A; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:56:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.11.240.87] ([10.11.240.87]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 02D7unK1017970; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:56:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [Ietf-and-github] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
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> <27fd774b-b8cd-4454-81d2-36c44d497574@www.fastmail.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4c1fba7f-1aef-d9eb-dfff-5574740913af@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:56:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <27fd774b-b8cd-4454-81d2-36c44d497574@www.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gw9eL3qMmusRVlfZtUKC8vBCLRs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:56:54 -0000


Le 12/03/2020 à 00:03, Martin Thomson a écrit :
> 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. 

Wth all due respect, and with thanks to private advice I found valuable 
in ly work.

But what do you mean by the above phrase?

Why dont you publishs that document as a personal article somewhere, 
e.g. on researchgate, with a DOI number.  DOI is also a three letter 
word like RFC, also is set in stone, also does not accept modifications.

Alex


  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.
> 
> _______________________________________________ Ietf-and-github
> mailing list Ietf-and-github@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
>