Hello,
At 07:23 AM 18-02-2020, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the GitHub Integration and Tooling WG
(git) to consider the following document: - 'Working Group GitHub Usage
Guidance'
<draft-ietf-git-using-github-04.txt> as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2020-03-03. Exceptionally, comments may
This intended BCP recommends a sole provider. I don't consider it as
a good idea for a standards development organization to make such a
recommendation when the organization argues against centralization
and single points of failure in its RFCs and statements.
The draft acknowledges that the recommended provider only supports
IPv4. That is correct:
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 52462
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;github.com. IN AAAA
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
github.com. 60 IN SOA ns1.p16.dynect.net.
hostmaster.github.com. 1583613295 3600 600 604800 60
If I am not mistaken, the reason for "dogfooding" is that it provides
some evidence that the IETF has confidence in its specifications will
work, as designed, for the services which complies with those
specifications. Is the choice of GitHub based on a market-driven approach?
There is the following in Section 1: "Use of this service has been
found to reduce the time that Working Groups need to produce
documents and to improve the quality of the final result". Is there
any data from different IETF Areas to back that claim?
In Section 2.1:
"The owner team for a Working Group repository MUST include responsible
Area Directors."
Isn't there only one Responsible Area Director per Working Group?
In Section 4.1.3:
"Issues that have reached a resolution that has Working Group
consensus MUST NOT be reopened unless new information is presented."
Shouldn't that be "rough consensus" as per RFC 2418?
There is a citation to RFC 2026 in Section 7. Shouldn't that be RFC 2418?
What is the meaning of "selection biases" in Section 7?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
