Hi Kjetil,
At 12:23 AM 11-03-2020, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
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.
This is from the Introduction Section:
"The main purpose of this document is providing guidelines for how
Working Groups might integrate the capabilities provided by GitHub
into their processes for developing Internet-Drafts."
That is far from generic. There is also a similar statement in
Section 1.4. The "Organizations" (Section 2.1) may be specific to
the commercial provider.
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
I don't know whether that was considered by the working group in the
discussion of Section 1.2.
Did the working group also consider recommending that IESG members
file their comments and other issues as per Section 4.1? That would
enable a working group to implement Section 4.1.3.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
