As an observer outside this discussion, thank you to all who have been participating!
From Richard’s proposal (which seems to me reasonable and effective), my question is whether the repository of the eventually to-be-published RFC would belong to the RPC or the author(s). I imagine it is somewhat awkward if the RPC/editor had to go to various authors’ repositories to make and track PRs. Different authors would likely use different repository structures. Perhaps the model would be having the Internet-Draft being developed at the authors’ repository, then at AUTH48 the RPC creates their own version of the repository for editorial and publication purposes? Ron _____________________________________ Ronald Tse Ribose Inc. +=========================================================+ This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. +=========================================================+ On 18 Sep 2025, at 11:02 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: 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]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
