Hello SM, Thank you, as usual, for your comments. As an IESG member, I balloted an ABSTAIN [1] on this document mainly for two issues that you also listed: - IPv4-only in 2020 for the IETF? Really ? - relying / advising to use a single commercial company web site (even if Microsoft won't go bankrupt any time soon but their 'free access to everyone' rule can be changed anytime) I am still amazed by those 2 documents even if I am a daily users of github.com (for personal use) and of a corporate bitbucket (for business). Regards -éric [1] ABSTAIN as in "I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the way of the others." Per https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/ -----Original Message----- From: last-call <last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tuesday, 10 March 2020 at 01:09 To: "last-call@xxxxxxxx" <last-call@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-git-using-github-04.txt> (Working Group GitHub Usage Guidance) to Best Current Practice 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 -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
