As per RFC 3005, the general list is intended for initial discussion until there is a more focused venue. Since this discussion has evolved into "to GitHub, or not to GitHub", the appropriate venue is < ietf-and-github@xxxxxxxx >. This request should have gone out sooner, and I apologize for that tardiness. - m&m Matthew A. Miller On 19/01/24 09:44, Bob Hinden wrote: > Matthew, > > Please explain why this discussion shouldn’t be happening on the IETF list? Seems relevant to me. > > Bob > > >> On Jan 24, 2019, at 7:53 AM, Matthew A. Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Please direct all further discussion on using GitHub to < >> ietf-and-github@xxxxxxxx >. >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> - >> Matthew A. Miller >> IETF Sergeant-at-arms >> >> On 19/01/24 08:23, Fernando Gont wrote: >>> On 22/1/19 20:31, Hector Santos wrote: >>>> My opinion. >>>> >>>> My only concern is the perception that the IETF is now "requiring" to >>>> learn a new suite of 3rd party tools for a single purpose - RFC Draft >>>> submissions publishing. For people doing this all the time, and >>>> probably also using the same tools for other parts of their career, I >>>> can understand it would be productive, but not for the occasional author. >>>> >>>> After several decades, I believe an application level IETF online RFC >>>> publishing tool should be available. In the past, I used XML2RFC (a >>>> java app) to outline, produce and publish my drafts. Isn't this >>>> available any more? I would think a HTML5 version would be doable >>>> today, and of course, some vcs would be integrated at the backend. >>>> >>>> I personally don't want wish to be learning git details and all the >>>> other scripting tools and text formats for a single purpose. I would if >>>> I have to at some top level rudimentary level just to get the job, but >>>> it is not desirable, and certainly not a career requirement for me. >>> >>> Don't worry: https://xkcd.com/1597/ (yes, there's a lot of truth to it >>> :-) ) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >> >
