On 07/03/2017 17:06, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not arguing against updating data tracker more often - just saying
>> this
>>> 'editor's draft' convention can work very well between official revisions
>>> no matter the cadence a WG chooses.
>>
>> The details of that discussion probably belong on ietf-and-github@xxxxxxxx
>> ,
>> but I must point out that this way of working *excludes* from the
>> discussion WG participants who don't grok github. Substantial issues
>> need to be discussed on the mailing list and substantial (non-typo)
>> revisions need to be posted as I-Ds.
>>
>
> Well, it's hard to know what to make of this without knowing what you
> mean by "substantial" but an active draft takes literally hundreds of PRs
> in its lifetime with perhaps half of those being non-typos. We could of
> course gateway every PR merge to an IETF draft push. Is that what you're
> looking for?
No. In fact (countering Michael's point slightly) I get quite annoyed
by draft versions that turn out only to fix few typos or grammatical errors;
those can wait. As for what constitutes "substantial", that's very subjective.
Anything that causes an on-the-wire protocol change would certainly be
substantial. Clarifying ambiguous text might be substantial. But YMMV.
> It seems to me that some of the benefit of having discrete draft revisions
> is that they represent coherent checkpoints, but you totally lose that if
> you treat each commit or merged PR as a co-equal revision.
Yes, I agree.
Brian