Skip to main content

Working Group GitHub Administration
draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-01-04
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Joel Jaeggli Last Call OPSDIR review
2024-01-04
07 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2020-08-26
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2020-08-10
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2020-05-18
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2020-04-16
07 Jean Mahoney Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Meral Shirazipour Last Call GENART review
2020-04-16
07 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2020-04-13
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2020-04-13
07 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2020-04-13
07 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2020-04-13
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress
2020-04-13
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2020-04-13
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2020-04-13
07 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2020-04-13
07 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2020-04-13
07 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2020-04-13
07 Barry Leiba IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2020-04-13
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2020-04-13
07 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-07.txt
2020-04-13
07 (System) New version approved
2020-04-13
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alissa Cooper , Paul Hoffman
2020-04-13
07 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2020-04-10
06 Barry Leiba IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2020-04-10
06 Barry Leiba This document now replaces draft-cooper-wugh-github-wg-configuration instead of None
2020-03-12
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2020-03-12
06 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot comment]
* Section 2.5:

If there is an expectation that datatracker is expected to drive the creation of the document repositories on github and …
[Ballot comment]
* Section 2.5:

If there is an expectation that datatracker is expected to drive the creation of the document repositories on github and to provide access to authors/editors (as this section implies) I think there is a need for identity mapping for authors/editors similar to what is specified in Section 2.1 ("Steps 3 and 4 above imply that the GitHub identities of the organization owners and administrators are known." related to ticket 2548).
2020-03-12
06 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2020-03-12
06 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
**********************************************************************
* Note, that I am conducting an experiment when people aspiring to be*
* Area Directors get exposed to AD work ("AD …
[Ballot comment]
**********************************************************************
* Note, that I am conducting an experiment when people aspiring to be*
* Area Directors get exposed to AD work ("AD shadowing experiment"). *
* As a part of this experiment they get to review documents on IESG  *
* telechats according to IESG Discuss criteria document and their    *
* comments get relayed pretty much verbatim to relevant editors/WGs. *
* As an AD I retain responsibility in defending their position when  *
* I agree with it.                                                  *
* Recipients of these reviews are encouraged to reply to me directly *
* about perceived successes or failures of this experiment.          *
**********************************************************************

The following comments were provided by Francesca Palombini .

Francesca would have balloted *No Objections* on this document. She wrote:

Comment:

This draft is informational, but does put up requirements on IETF Secretariat and tools team in order for readers to follow its possible use (develop certain features, add certain tasks to IETF Secretariat). I see this draft as both a wish list (valid at this point in time) and a guideline. If it would contain only the possible guideline, I would understand that publishing it would have value, but as it is I am not sure: what does publishing it add to having the draft itself?
2020-03-12
06 Alexey Melnikov Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov
2020-03-11
06 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
I'm not quite sure this needs to be published (in terms of archival
value), but don't feel strongly enough to post an Abstain …
[Ballot comment]
I'm not quite sure this needs to be published (in terms of archival
value), but don't feel strongly enough to post an Abstain position.

Section 1

  conventions proposed here: that is fine.  The goal of the proposals
  in this document is not to require uniformity in current practice,
  but to help working groups get started using GitHub in a uniform way
  if desired.

It seems like perhaps the uniformity is not the key part (since we've
disclaimed total uniformity and endorsed WG sovreignity), but rather
that the set of practices has been reviewed and validated already.

Section 2

Should we give commit hashes for the listed examples of automation so as
to provide a stable reference?

Section 2.4

So those ADs at time of closing are privileged and retain access
indefinitely?

Section 3.1

[I mentioned CONTRIBUTING vs. CONTRIBUTING.md on the other doc, and
cross-document consistency is good.]
2020-03-11
06 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2020-03-11
06 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
I support Mirja Kühlewind DISCUSS position and agree with the Alvaro’s Retana’s comment

** Section 3.  It seems like a stronger statement should …
[Ballot comment]
I support Mirja Kühlewind DISCUSS position and agree with the Alvaro’s Retana’s comment

** Section 3.  It seems like a stronger statement should be:
s/It would be good for working group GitHub content to also be backed up and publicly archived/Working group GitHub content needs to be backed up and publicly archived/

** Section 4.  The text would benefit from noting that the risk of centralization is recognized, but mitigated by the plan described in Section 3.2.
2020-03-11
06 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2020-03-11
06 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2020-03-11
06 Deborah Brungard
[Ballot comment]
I'd prefer to have this document incorporated in the proposed BCP so as to have the guidance in one document. I understand from …
[Ballot comment]
I'd prefer to have this document incorporated in the proposed BCP so as to have the guidance in one document. I understand from the discussion this was decided not to be the best approach.
2020-03-11
06 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2020-03-11
06 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
The datatracker should list draft-cooper-wugh-github-wg-configuration as being replaced by this document.

I concur with Mirja's questions about the value of publishing this document …
[Ballot comment]
The datatracker should list draft-cooper-wugh-github-wg-configuration as being replaced by this document.

I concur with Mirja's questions about the value of publishing this document given that the Tools Team and the Secretariat are already working towards what it describes.  It seems to me that the objectives to spur discussion and reach rough consensus (through the WG and IETF LCs) have been met and that publication is not necessary...except for the fact that this document is currently a Normative reference in draft-ietf-git-using-github...
2020-03-11
06 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2020-03-10
06 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2020-03-10
06 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot discuss]
To be honest I don't fully understand the point of this document. It seem like this document is supposed to be the basis …
[Ballot discuss]
To be honest I don't fully understand the point of this document. It seem like this document is supposed to be the basis for more discussion, however, I thought that's what we have the wg for. So when and how do we come to a final decision if we want to implement the proposed changes? And what would we do in that case - take this document and republish? Why can't we make the decision first and then publish something? In short, I think it would be important that the document also describes what the next steps are and the triggers to move on!
2020-03-10
06 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Other questions/comments:

1) Sec 2.3:
"There should likely be an API to specify that there were personnel changes."
Inline with the comment in …
[Ballot comment]
Other questions/comments:

1) Sec 2.3:
"There should likely be an API to specify that there were personnel changes."
Inline with the comment in the shepherd write-up, I find this sentence really unclear. I'm not even sure where the API should be (datatracker or GitHub) and what is should do?

2) Sec 2.5:
"Creating a new repository for an individual draft"
This section indicated that also individual drafts could be maintained within the official wg organization. I'm not sure if that is practical or desirable: Which individual docs should the chairs allow repos for and which not? There can be quite a lot of draft in some groups.

3) Also sec 2.5:
"  As an incremental step, this document proposes that there be a
  facility in the Datatracker interface to allow an administrator of an
  ietf-wg- organization to request the creation of a new
  repository within that organization for a single document."
For -00 version you usually want to have a repo before you submit it to the datatracker. So a button on the datatracker page of the draft does not seems too useful...

4) Sec 2.6:
"At the time of this writing this feature was under development."
Wasn't there always/for a long time already a feature where you can add link to external pages?
2020-03-10
06 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2020-03-09
06 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
I abstain with the meaning of "I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the …
[Ballot comment]
I abstain with the meaning of "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/

Is there a reason why "GitHub" is used rather than simply "Git" ? Is it implicit to be the commercial web site "github.com" ? If so, let's be clear in this first document from the GIT WG. Alternatives such as GitLab and BitBucket are only briefly mentioned.

And, I understand that the GIT charter is also quite vague on this topic and SHOULD be updated to make it clear if this document is not clear about what is "GitHub".

The document itself is clear, easy to read, and sensible except for the unique perceived focus of "github.com".

Finally, I cannot accept that an IETF document in 2020 proposes to use an IPv4-only web site (see also the IAB statement https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6 ). Let's eat our own dog food.

-éric
2020-03-09
06 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2020-03-03
06 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2020-02-28
06 Nancy Cam-Winget Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Nancy Cam-Winget. Sent review to list.
2020-02-28
06 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-03-12
2020-02-28
06 Barry Leiba IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2020-02-28
06 Barry Leiba Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2020-02-28
06 Barry Leiba Ballot has been issued
2020-02-28
06 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2020-02-28
06 Barry Leiba Created "Approve" ballot
2020-02-28
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2020-02-28
06 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2020-02-28
06 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2020-02-20
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2020-02-20
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2020-02-20
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Nancy Cam-Winget
2020-02-20
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Nancy Cam-Winget
2020-02-18
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli
2020-02-18
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli
2020-02-14
06 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2020-02-14
06 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-02-28):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: git-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-and-github@ietf.org, draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration@ietf.org, Christopher Wood , …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-02-28):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: git-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-and-github@ietf.org, draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration@ietf.org, Christopher Wood , caw@heapingbits.net, barryleiba@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Working Group GitHub Administration) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the GitHub Integration and Tooling WG
(git) to consider the following document: - 'Working Group GitHub
Administration'
  as Informational RFC

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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-02-28. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The use of GitHub in IETF working group processes is increasing.
  This document describes possible uses and conventions for working
  groups which are considering starting to use GitHub.  It does not
  mandate any processes, and does not require changes to the processes
  used by current and future working groups not using GitHub.

  Discussion of this document takes place on the ietf-and-github
  mailing list (ietf-and-github@ietf.org), which is archived at
  .




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2020-02-14
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2020-02-14
06 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2020-02-13
06 Barry Leiba Last call was requested
2020-02-13
06 Barry Leiba Last call announcement was generated
2020-02-13
06 Barry Leiba Ballot approval text was generated
2020-02-13
06 Barry Leiba IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed
2020-02-13
06 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-06.txt
2020-02-13
06 (System) New version approved
2020-02-13
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Hoffman , Alissa Cooper
2020-02-13
06 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2020-02-07
05 Barry Leiba
I’ve picked this document up as responsible AD, because Alissa is an
author on the document.  There’s one item in my review that I’d like …
I’ve picked this document up as responsible AD, because Alissa is an
author on the document.  There’s one item in my review that I’d like
to have addressed before this goes out for last call; the rest don’t
need to block last call, but they should be easy to address.

Blocking comment:

— Section 2.4 —

  When a working group is closed, the team with administrative access
  would be removed and the owner list would be returned to its initial
  composition.

What “initial composition”?  The Secretariat and the ADs at the time
the organization was created?  That doesn’t make sense.  The
Secretariat and current ADs at the time of closing?  That’s not
“initial”.  Or do you have something else in mind?


The rest:

— Abstract —
Just a note here that the second paragraph should be removed before
publication.  I’ve put this in as an RFC Editor Note.

— Section 1 —

  proposals in this document, the functional requirements would need to
  be discussed with the IETF Tools Team, and the IETF Secretariat who
  would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein.

Nit: the comma after “Tools Team” is misplaced, and should be after
“Secretariat” instead.

— Section 2 —

  For example, see
    and
    for working examples
  of automation that is in use in some working groups.

Two things here:

1. Nit: “For example … for working examples” is redundant; I suggest
starting the sentence with “See”.

2. I’m not sure that these URLs will stand the test of time, remaining
valid in an archival document.  On the other hand, having them here as
examples is certainly useful.  Perhaps we could archive them on an
ietf.com page, or perhaps the RFC Editor could do so on an
rfc-editor.com page?

  In this document the question of whether processes should be manual
  or automated is deliberately left ambiguous

“Ambiguous” isn’t the right word — it carries a connotation of
confusion.  I suggest “unspecified”.  And there needs to be a comma
after that word, whichever we choose.

— Section 2.2 —

  be able to run steps 3 and 4 from Section 2.1 so that the rest of the
  activities in this section such as personnel work the same for the
  organizations that were created on their own.

I find this awkward; I think it needs commas and a minor edit:

NEW
  be able to run steps 3 and 4 from Section 2.1 so that the rest of the
  activities in this section, such as personnel changes, work the same
  way as for organizations that were created as specified herein.
END

— Section 2.5 —

  o  Creating a new repository for an individual draft that is at the
      discretion of the WG chair;

What does “an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair” mean?

— Section 4 —

  An attacker who can change the contents of Internet Drafts,
  particularly late in a working group's process, can possibly cause
  unnoticed changes in protocols that are eventually adopted.

Indeed, and so should we propose any mitigations?  Using a github
instance that’s maintained and secured under ietf.org?  At the very
least we’ll need to rely on careful review during the publication
process, including verifying what changes were made at each step and
flagging questionable changes.  The text here should probably say
something more.
2020-02-07
05 Barry Leiba IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation
2020-02-07
05 Barry Leiba Ballot writeup was changed
2020-02-07
05 Barry Leiba IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2020-02-07
05 Barry Leiba Shepherding AD changed to Barry Leiba
2020-01-21
05 Christopher Wood
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational, as reflected in the title page header. This type is appropriate because the document discusses guidelines for tool usage without mandating or prescribing any specific actions.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document describes possible uses and conventions for working groups which are considering starting to use GitHub. It also proposes extensions to the IETF Datatracker that might help the IETF community better implement the policies proposed herein.

Working Group Summary:

Some members of the WG expressed concern over who might implement the mechanisms or policies described in the document. Beyond that, there were no controversial points raised over this document.

Document Quality:

This document is short, simple, and well written.

Personnel:

Christopher A. Wood is the Document Shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document was reviewed in total alongside all archived WG correspondence regarding its content.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No. The document received numerous reviews in the working group.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

There are some parts of the document that seem unnecessarily specific. For example, Section 3.2 describes a hypothetical service that might be used for backing up GitHub content, along with the frequency that such backups might occur.

There are also some parts of the document that seem too vague. For example, in Section 2.3, it's suggested that there "should likely be an API to specify that there were personnel changes." What would this API do? Who would call it? However, as this proposal is not meant to be implementable as-is, this level of specificity is probably fine.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Only a handful of people spoke up on the WG Last Call email in favor of moving the document forward. The document faced no opposition at this time, or in past meetings on the list. Given that this is only one of two documents for this WG, this indicates that the WG as a whole understands and agrees with the current text.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No nits identified.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

N/A.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

N/A.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A.
2020-01-21
05 Christopher Wood Responsible AD changed to Alissa Cooper
2020-01-21
05 Christopher Wood IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2020-01-21
05 Christopher Wood IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2020-01-21
05 Christopher Wood IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2020-01-21
05 Christopher Wood Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2020-01-21
05 Christopher Wood
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational, as reflected in the title page header. This type is appropriate because the document discusses guidelines for tool usage without mandating or prescribing any specific actions.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document describes possible uses and conventions for working groups which are considering starting to use GitHub. It also proposes extensions to the IETF Datatracker that might help the IETF community better implement the policies proposed herein.

Working Group Summary:

Some members of the WG expressed concern over who might implement the mechanisms or policies described in the document. Beyond that, there were no controversial points raised over this document.

Document Quality:

This document is short, simple, and well written.

Personnel:

Christopher A. Wood is the Document Shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document was reviewed in total alongside all archived WG correspondence regarding its content.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No. The document received numerous reviews in the working group.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

There are some parts of the document that seem unnecessarily specific. For example, Section 3.2 describes a hypothetical service that might be used for backing up GitHub content, along with the frequency that such backups might occur.

There are also some parts of the document that seem too vague. For example, in Section 2.3, it's suggested that there "should likely be an API to specify that there were personnel changes." What would this API do? Who would call it? However, as this proposal is not meant to be implementable as-is, this level of specificity is probably fine.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Only a handful of people spoke up on the WG Last Call email in favor of moving the document forward. The document faced no opposition at this time, or in past meetings on the list. Given that this is only one of two documents for this WG, this indicates that the WG as a whole understands and agrees with the current text.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No nits identified.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

N/A.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

N/A.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A.
2020-01-21
05 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-05.txt
2020-01-21
05 (System) New version approved
2020-01-21
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Hoffman , Alissa Cooper
2020-01-21
05 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2020-01-20
04 Christopher Wood
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational, as reflected in the title page header. This type is appropriate because the document discusses guidelines for tool usage without mandating or prescribing any specific actions.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document describes possible uses and conventions for working groups which are considering starting to use GitHub. It also proposes extensions to the IETF Datatracker that might help the IETF community better implement the policies proposed herein.

Working Group Summary:

Some members of the WG expressed concern over who might implement the mechanisms or policies described in the document. Beyond that, there were no controversial points raised over this document.

Document Quality:

This document is short, simple, and well written.

Personnel:

Christopher A. Wood is the Document Shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document was reviewed in total alongside all archived WG correspondence regarding its content.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No. The document received numerous reviews in the working group.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

There are some parts of the document that seem unnecessarily specific. For example, Section 3.2 describes a hypothetical service that might be used for backing up GitHub content, along with the frequency that such backups might occur.

There are also some parts of the document that seem too vague. For example, in Section 2.3, it's suggested that there "should likely be an API to specify that there were personnel changes." What would this API do? Who would call it? However, as this proposal is not meant to be implementable as-is, this level of specificity is probably fine.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Only a handful of people spoke up on the WG Last Call email in favor of moving the document forward. The document faced no opposition at this time, or in past meetings on the list. Given that this is only one of two documents for this WG, this indicates that the WG as a whole understands and agrees with the current text.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No nits identified.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

Yes -- the reference to "Git on the Server - The Protocols."

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

N/A.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

N/A.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A.
2020-01-18
04 Christopher Wood Notification list changed to Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
2020-01-18
04 Christopher Wood Document shepherd changed to Christopher A. Wood
2019-12-20
04 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-04.txt
2019-12-20
04 (System) New version approved
2019-12-20
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Hoffman , Alissa Cooper
2019-12-20
04 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2019-12-16
03 Christopher Wood IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2019-11-19
03 Christopher Wood IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2019-10-21
03 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-03.txt
2019-10-21
03 (System) New version approved
2019-10-21
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Hoffman , Alissa Cooper
2019-10-21
03 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2019-09-07
02 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-02.txt
2019-09-07
02 (System) New version approved
2019-09-07
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Hoffman , Alissa Cooper
2019-09-07
02 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2019-04-12
01 Christopher Wood IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Adopted by a WG
2019-03-07
01 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-01.txt
2019-03-07
01 (System) New version approved
2019-03-07
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Hoffman , Alissa Cooper
2019-03-07
01 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2019-03-01
00 Christopher Wood IETF WG state changed to Adopted by a WG from Call For Adoption By WG Issued
2019-02-14
00 Christopher Wood IETF WG state changed to Call For Adoption By WG Issued from WG Document
2019-02-13
00 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-00.txt
2019-02-13
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2019-02-13
00 Paul Hoffman Set submitter to "Paul Hoffman ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: git-chairs@ietf.org
2019-02-13
00 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision