----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Kumari" <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "Michael Richardson" <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 7:40 PM > I've worked with a number of different authors, and there does seem to > be a wide range of preferences. > > I personally like to publish early, and often; I'll often publish a > new version integrating just one persons comments (or, of they are > nits, batch up a few sets into one version). If there are lots of > comments going back and forth, I don't think it is easy for WG > participants to mentally keep track of all the different comments, how > they interrelate, and what the final text will look like. I also think > that it is politer to respond to feedback by integrating and > publishing a new version, instead of just saying "Thanks, I'll get to > them sometime....". > Committing to GitHub kinda accomplishes this, but a: it's harder for > participants to find, and b: the github version is a second class > citizen. > > But, other authors seem to have a different view -- they'd much rather > get everything fully squared away, all comments addressed, all 't's > crossed and 'i's dotted. How sensible other authors are! A number of I-Ds I have seen in the recent past got a comment from one experienced in the field which led the author to issue a revised version, which prompted a comment from another experienced in the field contradicting the first comment which led the author to .. I give up and await IETF Last Call, or if it is an I-D where my interest is not major, give up altogether; life's too short to track a series of somersaults. The IETF proceeds at a leisurely pace, taking a week or two or more for comments to appear, so updating more often than that is counter-productive. Tom Petch > One of the stickier points is what to do during WGLC -- unfortunately, > in many groups this is where the majority of the review and feedback > happens, and it is often viewed as poor form to revise during WGLC. > It's often hard for the *authors* to keep track of what the consensus > is when there are lots of comments, what the new text would look like, > etc -- expecting random WG participants to do so is (IMO) unreasonable > and leads to frustration and overlapping comments. I'd personally > rather publish new versions *during WGLC* saying "This is what this > looks like now, does this address your issues?" than trying to explain > that we will move text from Section 3.2.5.4.3 bullet 9 to Section > 1.7.4 to address Mike's comment, but that will mean that Billy's > comments no longer apply because it removes the text that he's > commenting on, other than the nits about the case of the acronym, > which we agreed to change globally, except in section 8, because it is > quoting from another RFC. Confused yet? > > W > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Michael Richardson > <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > For the third time in two days I find myself, when asking others for opinions > > about some text, pointing at github commit logs. With the beautiful > > makefiles we often have, one can't even depend upon having a formatted .txt > > version there! > > > > This is not a rant for or against git or github, but rather about what I > > perceive as a shyness about posting intermediate versions of Internet Drafts > > to the datatracker. > > > > I understand that in academia, they never like letting half-baked ideas out, > > and so the -00 that we see from academics are often overdue and overly > > polished. I know I can't fight that, but at least the -01, etc. could be > > issued faster? > > > > I've even heard some push back from people along the lines of, "wow, that ID > > has 27 revisions, is it really stable?", and my feelings have often been more > > along the lines of, "wow, that revision has 27 revisions, the authors are > > really keen and responsive". > > > > I appreciate for some reviewers that having more revisions implies that they > > think they have to look at the text more often. > > > > But given the diff utilities, it shouldn't matter how many revisions there > > were before times you look, as you can just skip the intermediate versions. > > > > -- > > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works > > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > > > > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf >