[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-git-using-github-04
David Black via Datatracker <email@example.com> Sat, 29 February 2020 01:25 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726453A0877; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 17:25:22 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: David Black via Datatracker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Reply-To: David Black <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 17:25:22 -0800
Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-git-using-github-04
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 01:25:23 -0000
Reviewer: David Black Review result: Ready with Nits This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC email@example.com if you reply to or forward this review. This draft describes best practices for use of GitHub in IETF working groups and provides some very helpful policy examples. I did not see any technical issues related to the Transport Area. As this document will apply to use of GitHub by Working Groups in the Transport Area, I have a couple of editorial comments on the draft's content for the authors to consider:  The split of Issue Tracker material across Sections 4.1 and 5 seems off. In particular, Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 on closing and reopening issues are strongly connected to the Section 5 discussion of WG policies for Issue Tracker usage and hence ought to be moved into Section 5. The Section 4.1 discussion on use of labels could likewise benefit from being merged into the more extensive discussion of WG use of labels in Section 5.4 .  The example WG policies in Section 5 come tantalizingly close to being well known policies that can be used by reference in a fashion analogous to the well-known IANA registry management policies in Section 4.1 of RFC 5226 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1). Doing the analogous thing with these GitHub policies is likely to be greatly appreciated by WG Chairs who are new to WG use of GitHub. However, use of GitHub may not have matured to the point where this is a sensible thing to do, and hence I leave the determination of whether this should be done to the authors' and the IESG's best judgement.
- [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-g… David Black via Datatracker
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Ietf-and-github] Tsvart last call … Martin Thomson