Just to be clear, if the authors want to make unsolicited changes beyond what
the RPC changed, they should be generating their own PRs, not making those
changes to the RPC's PR.
And if the changes are not purely editorial, they must be reported to the WG,
as long as we're talking about IETF Consensus documents. So that changes the
game.
BTW I'm not sure the procedure that Richard outlined is complete. There's an
important step in the current procedure that he didn't list:
2a. Script sends RPC's specfic questions to authors in a second email
and step 3 should read:
3. Authors respond to email including answering those specific questions
So how are those questions handled via Github? And how does the RPC nag authors
that don't reply?
Brian
On 18-Sep-25 14:43, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 7:27 PM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 17 Sep 2025, at 19:09, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> To be clear, what I was trying to say was not that all the RPC's changes
> should be in one PR -- though I think that's easiest for the RPC at this
> point -- but rather that as they iterate on a given set of changes they
> should be in a single PR.
How do you picture those author responses to the PR going? Simply as
comments in the PR? Text changes done as commits in the branch that created the
PR? Or something else?
Comments to the PR that specify what the authors want clearly and/or Github
suggestions that specify the exact changes.
I don't think commits in the branch that created the PR are helpful and
generally may not be permitted by the GitHub permissions model (depending on
exactly how things are specified).
I ask because I suck at commenting in PRs for documents, and when I do so,
I get wildly different advice from the authors about the proper way to comment
in a PR. It would be good if the RPC could say to authors ahead of time how the
authors should interact with the PR (just as they are told how to respond to
AUTH48 email).
Well, hopefully this situation is clearer because the space of reasonable comments is rather
smaller, as the authors should only be commenting on text the RPC has changed, and so mostly you
should either be saying "Please revert this change" or "Here is yet another
alternate piece of text".
Just to be clear, if the authors want to make unsolicited changes beyond what
the RPC changed, they should be generating their own PRs, not making those
changes to the RPC's PR.
-Ekr
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
