Re: [Mops] Confirming adoption consensus Re: draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Leslie,

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 10:40 PM Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Spencer,
>
> One thing I’ve been trying to find out is: how to tie a git repo to the
> IETF. Looking at the CELLAR example, it seems like one just makes the
> assertion that it is the WG git repo? And, it seems odd that there are no
> visible members, let alone owner, of the git repo?
>
> Apologies if I’m missing the obvious.
>
I don't think you are.

I believe the current state of play is described in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-05,
especially in Section 2.1 and following sections (note that this draft is
in PUBREQ state, so it's probably mostly right, but hasn't even been
through AD review yet). Some of the text is input to the tools team, but
most (selecting organization names, etc.) isn't dependent on datatracker
support.

I believe you are correct that in Github, that's an assertion. In the
datatracker, co-chairs can add the URL for the organization (I think you
can just stick this on the working group page now, but apparently there's
development underway that would allow the datatracker to know that URL is a
GitHub repository).

I've only been watching CELLAR for a few weeks, so don't know the history
on defined users, etc. - sorry!

I hope that's helpful.

Spencer

> Leslie.
>
> On 3 Feb 2020, at 21:27, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>
> Hi, Kyle,
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:01 PM Kyle Rose <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I'll look into the right way to set this up. I'm not sure that the QUIC
>> single-repo model makes sense here, but one or more official MOPS repos for
>> adopted docs seems like a good idea.
>>
>
> I'm certainly not the genius of Github at IETF, but I'd tend to agree -
> the MOPS documents aren't likely to have the same tight linkages and
> intersecting participant lists that the QUIC core protocol specifications
> do. I'm recently co-chair of CELLAR, and that working group uses 4 repos
> (see https://github.com/cellar-wg for details).
>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
>
>
>>
>> Kyle
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:17 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Leslie,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 11:34 AM Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That’s a fair question.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, if people are generally interested in using GitHub for docs in
>>>> this WG, we should. Kyle?
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be some leaning that way, given Jake & Ali’s use so far,
>>>> but I, at least, would like to hear from others to know whether the
>>>> interest in using GitHub for documents extends beyond the authors of that
>>>> particular document?
>>>>
>>> I certainly am (I have a PR waiting for that particular document now,
>>> but I don't know why we would not want to use Github for other docs).
>>>
>>> I'd also note that Ali has at least a few issues in Jake's repository
>>> now, and I've been waiting to see if the repository would change upon
>>> adoption before adding issues of my own.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Spencer
>>>
>>>> Leslie.
>>>>
>>>> On 30 Jan 2020, at 16:51, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since we seem to be getting "support" e-mail and the 31st is tomorrow,
>>>> is it too early to ask if the working group will have its own repository
>>>> for working group drafts?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Spencer
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:25 PM Matt Stock <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I support the adoption of the draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:45 PM Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, Jake, for putting together the follow ups from the IETF 106
>>>>>> MOPS meeting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m happy to see others have already started chiming in with comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We had pretty strong consensus in the room to take this on as a WG
>>>>>> item, and I’m happy to formally follow that up on the list here and now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If anyone *objects* to adoption of the document (
>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jholland-mops-taxonomy-01), please
>>>>>> share your objection now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is no (unresolved) objection by the end of January 31, 2020,
>>>>>> we will adopt this document as draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Leslie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17 Jan 2020, at 17:26, Holland, Jake wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Mops,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm finally writing to follow up on draft-jholland-mops-taxonomy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did a quick review of the video from the IETF 106 mops meeting:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_k340xT2jM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I captured the comments I heard in a new notes section and
>>>>>> updated the draft to -01, plus a few very minor editing tweaks.
>>>>>> I was going to rename it to draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons, but
>>>>>> I thought I'd wait until after the adoption call, to make sure it's
>>>>>> confirmed on-list. (I think the data tracker is easier to use when
>>>>>> you change names less often...)
>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jholland-mops-taxonomy-01
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also wanted to say thanks to the folks who volunteered to co-author
>>>>>> this draft. You 3 are BCC'd, and your contributions are very welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also wanted to ask whether there's any particular topics you'll be
>>>>>> working on, so we don't get multiple people writing to the same
>>>>>> points?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regardless, for the moment the current version is here and I'm
>>>>>> accepting pull requests :) :
>>>>>> https://github.com/GrumpyOldTroll/ietf-mops-drafts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming the adoption call starts soon and is successful, we maybe
>>>>>> should move to a WG-owned repo, but that's where it is for now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>>>> Jake
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mops mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leslie Daigle
>>>>>> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mops mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> [image: Limelight Networks] <https://www.limelight.com>
>>>>> Matt Stock* Principal Architect*
>>>>> EXPERIENCE FIRST.
>>>>> [phone] <+1+716+949+0332>
>>>>> www.limelight.com
>>>>> [image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/LimelightNetworks>[image:
>>>>> LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/limelight-networks>[image:
>>>>> Twitter] <https://twitter..com/llnw>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mops mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mops mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Leslie Daigle
>>>> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>
>>> --
> Mops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops
>
> --
> ------------------------------
>
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
> [e-mail]
>