On Wed, 2020-03-11 at 18:26 -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> 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.
no objection there. what I meant is that the advice itself applies
more broadly than stated in the introduction and elsewhere. it is
quite doable to rewrite these references and descriptions of mechanisms
so that they are less locked into the terminology of a single 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.
>
I have not followed the work of the WG, so I do not know.
--
regards,
Kjetil T.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
