Hi all,
On 9/17/25 10:22 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 8:02 PM Brian E Carpenter
<[email protected] <mailto:[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.
Well, the RPC side of this is to consult the AD. With that said, it's
not been my experience that the AD always asks the WG.
[JM] For IETF stream docs, the RPC asks the AD to review and approve any
changes that are above editorial.
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?
They should be in GitHub issues. And the document simply shouldn't
publish until all issues are resolved.
[JM] The RPC will continue to write their questions to the authors as
comments in the source file.
Creating GH issues for questions posed to authors is sketched out in
phase 2 of the roadmap [1] for authors who want to use GitHub for AUTH48.
Thanks!
Jean
[1]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc_github_roadmap#phase_2collaborating_with_authors_during_auth48_todo
-Ekr
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]> <mailto:[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]
<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]
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
