On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 12:50:58AM +0200, Toerless Eckert wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 05:15:54PM -0400, John Levine wrote: > > This sort of argument quickly runs down a rathole of hosting our own > > servers, generating our own power, and fabbing our own chips. > > I don't think it should. Leveraging external resources where beneficial > is always good. I just don't think we should necessarily standardize > on a particular vendor of version management repository. The simplest thing to do is to have existing IETF mailing list archive infrastructure also implement git mirroring, with read-only service to the public. > Do we even have anything that would NOT allow any WG or smaller unit > to pick whatever type of repository they wanted ? Is there any mandatory > use of repository ? Sorry, i am still not on top of all processes the > IETF has come up with. This is all informal. At the end of the day the outpug of WGs is Internet-Drafts, and the medium for consensus calls is the WG mailing lists. > I also like to note that i do prefer to have a simpler way to maintain > version history of IETF output in a simpler to diggest fashion than > any git tool. That remains: Internet-Draft submission history.
