Re: Updated IESG Statement "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream"

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Spencer,


Ah, WHATWG. The memories!

It was interesting watching the draft process and working group interact with Hixie's preferred way of working; every minor tweak to his draft resulted in a new version being pushed onto everyone, so no-one knew what they were discussing and we were just flooded with noise.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol

76 versions before the 'cut it out' contingent won out.

Of course, this was pre-heavy git use, where anyone just on the mailing list wouldn't even notice what was happening in git or be in the loop.

yes, WHATWG was a horror show.

Lloyd Wood
[e-mail]


there are no living standards. There are dying standards, and undead standards.




On Tuesday, 11 May 2021, 17:21:40 GMT+10, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]> wrote: 





Hi, Lloyd,

On Tue, May 11, 2021, 00:36 Lloyd W <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Let me outline how this is all going to work in future. Prove me wrong.
> 
> Every git pull request on a document being edited under git revision control is by its very nature an errata report. errata are verified by being committed to main branch.
> 
> there are no final published documents, only git repositories with checkpoints, which are eventually given to the RFC Editor function to maintain as workgroups close. Implementations are based on document checkpoints, timestamped.
> 
> If you want to read an RFC or internet draft, you need to fire up git to go get it. Or rather, its up to date authoritative main revision repo tree.

I'm most familiar with WHATWG, and their "living standards", but I think that's reasonably close to what you're describing.

https://whatwg.org/

So I wouldn't dare argue that what you sketched out is unlikely. ISTM we're just trying to figure out how close, or how far away, that's going to be to what the IETF is doing in ten years. 

Best,

Spencer

> And you thought the fuss over turning off ftp access to RFCs was bad...
> 
> Lloyd Wood
> [e-mail]
> 
> 
>