On 07/03/2017 17:06, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I'm not arguing against updating data tracker more often - just saying
this
'editor's draft' convention can work very well between official revisions
no matter the cadence a WG chooses.
The details of that discussion probably belong on
ietf-and-github(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
,
but I must point out that this way of working *excludes* from the
discussion WG participants who don't grok github. Substantial issues
need to be discussed on the mailing list and substantial (non-typo)
revisions need to be posted as I-Ds.
Well, it's hard to know what to make of this without knowing what you
mean by "substantial" but an active draft takes literally hundreds of PRs
in its lifetime with perhaps half of those being non-typos. We could of
course gateway every PR merge to an IETF draft push. Is that what you're
looking for?
No. In fact (countering Michael's point slightly) I get quite annoyed
by draft versions that turn out only to fix few typos or grammatical errors;
those can wait. As for what constitutes "substantial", that's very subjective.
Anything that causes an on-the-wire protocol change would certainly be
substantial. Clarifying ambiguous text might be substantial. But YMMV.
It seems to me that some of the benefit of having discrete draft revisions
is that they represent coherent checkpoints, but you totally lose that if
you treat each commit or merged PR as a co-equal revision.
Yes, I agree.
Brian