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

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

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]
>>>
>>