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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 07/03/2017 17:28, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 07/03/2017 17:06, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
>>> [e-mail]> 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
>> [e-mail]
>>>> ,
>>>> 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?
>>
>> No. In fact (countering Michael's point slightly) I get quite annoyed
>> by draft versions that turn out only to fix few typos or grammatical
>> errors;
>> those can wait. As for what constitutes "substantial", that's very
>> subjective.
>> Anything that causes an on-the-wire protocol change would certainly be
>> substantial. Clarifying ambiguous text might be substantial. But YMMV.
>>
> 
> But this would still lead to a colossal number of drafts. 

I realised when reading your reply that it depends a lot
on what stage the draft has reached. In the early phases,
you're right of course. There could be many protocol changes
in quick succession, and they should be bundled up. My comment
was over-influenced by a draft I'm currently editing, where
IETF Last Call has led to a couple of minor on-the-wire changes.
At this stage, they are definitely significant and require a
new version (but even so, they will be bundled with numerous
editorial updates).

<snip>

> As you can see, we have an average of 5 wire-level changes per revision,

I have data for draft-ietf-anima-grasp, since I started logging
protocol changes at version 02. The average is about 3 per revision.
So maybe we are in fact agreeing violently.

    Brian