Re: [therightkey] Ramping up

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 2/20/14 11:42 AM, Rob Stradling wrote:
> Given the close relationship between RFC6962(-bis) and the open-source
> CT project, we've so far been logging issues for RFC6962-bis on the
> issue tracker at
> https://code.google.com/p/certificate-transparency/issues/list
> 
> I don't suppose it really matters which issue tracker we use.  Using an
> issue tracker will definitely be "helpful in progressing the document"
> though, IMHO.

Thanks, that's really helpful.  We ran into a parallel situation
in scim and ended up transitioning the issues that were specific
to the spec to the IETF issue tracker and keeping ones specific
to the implementation (and granted, that line isn't always
clear) in the Google code issue tracker.

There are two main questions when using an existing tracker (well,
maybe 2.5):

1) making sure that what goes into the tracker reflects working
   group issues with the spec (and that when an issue is closed
   it's because it reflects working group consensus), and
2) making sure that people who are involved with the spec but
   not with the implementation can add/comment/close working
   group issues
2.5) making sure that working group participants cannot scribble
   all over implementation issues

Melinda