Le 11/03/2020 à 08:23, Kjetil Torgrim Homme a écrit :
On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 17:17 -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Eric,
At 06:16 AM 10-03-2020, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
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).
Microsoft could decide that GitHub no longer fits in its
strategy. It could decide that the current "free access to
everyone" offer is no longer viable. I also have some experience of
problems .... I prefer not to recommend or rely on a single
commercial company because of that.
I have the same skepticsm about naming a specific commercial provider.
the draft would do well to just use Github as an example of such a
service. the advice in the draft is mostly generic for a) version
controlled maintenance and b) (non-)reliance on a third-party site.
the *ideal* solution, in my opinion, would be a self-hosted
gitlab.ietf.org. the open source version of Gitlab ("community
edition") is very capable and easy to set up and maintain.
gitlab.com is also IPv4 only, but it supports IPv6 nicely, e.g., here's
my employer's installation:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
gitlab.redpill-linpro.com. 3600 IN AAAA 2a02:c0:400:12::5
gitlab.redpill-linpro.com. 3600 IN A 87.238.60.92
Sounds as a good idea gitlab.ietf.org and IPv6.
Alex
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
