Hi all,
On 9/17/25 10:06 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
The proposal is for the RPC to own the repository in which AUTH48 is done.
[JM] Yes, this would be an RPC-owned repo, which fits into our broader
version control strategy.
If the WG / authors have a repo, it would be up to them to port any
changes from the RPC repo back to that one.
[JM] It is on the roadmap to provide tooling assistance to authors port
changes to their repos after the completion of AUTH48. Please see [1].
Thanks!
Jean
[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc_github_roadmap
--Richard
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 5:05 PM Ronald Tse
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
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] <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.
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]> <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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
<mailto:[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]
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
