Subject: Re: [Mops] Confirming adoption consensus Re: draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons

From: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 17:00:55 -0500

I'll look into the right way to set this up. I'm not sure that the QUIC
single-repo model makes sense here, but one or more official MOPS repos for
adopted docs seems like a good idea.

Kyle

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:17 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi, Leslie,
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 11:34 AM Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>> That’s a fair question.
>>
>> IMO, if people are generally interested in using GitHub for docs in this
>> WG, we should. Kyle?
>>
>> There seems to be some leaning that way, given Jake & Ali’s use so far,
>> but I, at least, would like to hear from others to know whether the
>> interest in using GitHub for documents extends beyond the authors of that
>> particular document?
>>
> I certainly am (I have a PR waiting for that particular document now, but
> I don't know why we would not want to use Github for other docs).
>
> I'd also note that Ali has at least a few issues in Jake's repository now,
> and I've been waiting to see if the repository would change upon adoption
> before adding issues of my own.
>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
>
>> Leslie.
>>
>> On 30 Jan 2020, at 16:51, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>>
>> Since we seem to be getting "support" e-mail and the 31st is tomorrow, is
>> it too early to ask if the working group will have its own repository for
>> working group drafts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:25 PM Matt Stock <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>> I support the adoption of the draft.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:45 PM Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Jake, for putting together the follow ups from the IETF 106
>>>> MOPS meeting.
>>>>
>>>> I’m happy to see others have already started chiming in with comments.
>>>>
>>>> We had pretty strong consensus in the room to take this on as a WG
>>>> item, and I’m happy to formally follow that up on the list here and now.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone *objects* to adoption of the document (
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jholland-mops-taxonomy-01), please
>>>> share your objection now.
>>>>
>>>> If there is no (unresolved) objection by the end of January 31, 2020,
>>>> we will adopt this document as draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons ...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Leslie.
>>>>
>>>> On 17 Jan 2020, at 17:26, Holland, Jake wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mops,
>>>>
>>>> I'm finally writing to follow up on draft-jholland-mops-taxonomy.
>>>>
>>>> I did a quick review of the video from the IETF 106 mops meeting:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_k340xT2jM
>>>>
>>>> I captured the comments I heard in a new notes section and
>>>> updated the draft to -01, plus a few very minor editing tweaks.
>>>> I was going to rename it to draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons, but
>>>> I thought I'd wait until after the adoption call, to make sure it's
>>>> confirmed on-list. (I think the data tracker is easier to use when
>>>> you change names less often...)
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jholland-mops-taxonomy-01
>>>>
>>>> I also wanted to say thanks to the folks who volunteered to co-author
>>>> this draft. You 3 are BCC'd, and your contributions are very welcome.
>>>>
>>>> I also wanted to ask whether there's any particular topics you'll be
>>>> working on, so we don't get multiple people writing to the same points?
>>>>
>>>> Regardless, for the moment the current version is here and I'm
>>>> accepting pull requests :) :
>>>> https://github.com/GrumpyOldTroll/ietf-mops-drafts
>>>>
>>>> Assuming the adoption call starts soon and is successful, we maybe
>>>> should move to a WG-owned repo, but that's where it is for now.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>> Jake
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mops mailing list
>>>> [email-masked]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Leslie Daigle
>>>> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
>>>> [email-masked]
>>>> --
>>>> Mops mailing list
>>>> [email-masked]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>  <https://www.limelight.com>
>>> Matt Stock* Principal Architect*
>>> EXPERIENCE FIRST.
>>> +1 716 949 0332 <+1+716+949+0332>
>>> www.limelight.com
>>>  <https://www.facebook.com/LimelightNetworks>[image:
>>> LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/limelight-networks>[image:
>>> Twitter] <https://twitter.com/llnw>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mops mailing list
>>> [email-masked]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops
>>>
>> --
>> Mops mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Leslie Daigle
>> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
>> [email-masked]
>>
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 20:27:01 -0600

Hi, Kyle,

> adopted docs seems like a good idea.

I'm certainly not the genius of Github at IETF, but I'd tend to agree - the
MOPS documents aren't likely to have the same tight linkages and
intersecting participant lists that the QUIC core protocol specifications
do. I'm recently co-chair of CELLAR, and that working group uses 4 repos
(see https://github.com/cellar-wg for details).

Best,

Spencer

>> I'd also note that Ali has at least a few issues in Jake's repository
>> now, and I've been waiting to see if the repository would change upon
>> adoption before adding issues of my own.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>>> Leslie.
>>>
>>> Since we seem to be getting "support" e-mail and the 31st is tomorrow,
>>> is it too early to ask if the working group will have its own repository
>>> for working group drafts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Spencer
>>>

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 23:39:55 -0500

Spencer,

One thing I’ve been trying to find out is:  how to tie a git repo to 
the IETF.  Looking at the CELLAR example, it seems like one just makes 
the assertion that it is the WG git repo?  And, it seems odd that there 
are no visible members, let alone owner, of the git repo?

Apologies if I’m missing the obvious.

Leslie.

On 3 Feb 2020, at 21:27, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

>>>>> LinkedIn] 
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/limelight-networks>[image:

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 10:04:26 -0600

Hi, Leslie,

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 10:40 PM Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Spencer,
>
> One thing I’ve been trying to find out is: how to tie a git repo to the
> IETF. Looking at the CELLAR example, it seems like one just makes the
> assertion that it is the WG git repo? And, it seems odd that there are no
> visible members, let alone owner, of the git repo?
>
I don't think you are.

I believe the current state of play is described in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-05,
especially in Section 2.1 and following sections (note that this draft is
in PUBREQ state, so it's probably mostly right, but hasn't even been
through AD review yet). Some of the text is input to the tools team, but
most (selecting organization names, etc.) isn't dependent on datatracker
support.

I believe you are correct that in Github, that's an assertion. In the
datatracker, co-chairs can add the URL for the organization (I think you
can just stick this on the working group page now, but apparently there's
development underway that would allow the datatracker to know that URL is a
GitHub repository).

I've only been watching CELLAR for a few weeks, so don't know the history
on defined users, etc. - sorry!

I hope that's helpful.

Spencer

> I'm certainly not the genius of Github at IETF, but I'd tend to agree -
> the MOPS documents aren't likely to have the same tight linkages and
>>>> IMO, if people are generally interested in using GitHub for docs in
>>>> this WG, we should. Kyle?
>>>>
>>> I certainly am (I have a PR waiting for that particular document now,
>>> but I don't know why we would not want to use Github for other docs).
>>>
>>>>>> we will adopt this document as draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Leslie.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Twitter] <https://twitter..com/llnw>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mops mailing list
>>>>> [email-masked]

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 14:28:46 -0500

Hi Spencer,

On 4 Feb 2020, at 11:04, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

>> the

Yep, I had read through that.

> development underway that would allow the datatracker to know that URL 

That’s a good point — it leaves it within the IETF’s purview to 
identify any “authentic” repo.

> on defined users, etc. - sorry!

I’m confident GitHub isn’t going away any time soon, but my general 
concern follows on from the IETF’s experience when everybody hosted 
their own WG mailing list (federated responsibility!  No single point of 
failure!) and archives were lost when people got irritated with the IETF 
or companies went belly-up.

I think it would be good if the IETF had a more persistent role in the 
administration of the git repos, if a group’s work is going to depend 
on it.

As a co-chair of MOPS, I don’t want to get in the way of providing a 
tool that current participants actually want to use!  But, I also want 
to make sure we use it in a way that is going to stand up to the test of 
time.

Leslie.

>>>>>>> this draft. You 3 are BCC'd, and your contributions are very 
>>>>>>> welcome..
>>>>>>>

--

---

From: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 10:40:28 -0500

I think ownership might be covered, at least from a policy perspective, by
some text from the git draft (notwithstanding the weaselly use of the
passive voice):

   When an area director or working group chair makes a request to
   create a GitHub organization, the following process would be
   initiated:

   1.  Create a GitHub organization for the working group.

   2.  Name the organization as ietf-wg-<wgname>

   3.  Initialize the organization by designating the IETF Secretariat
       and the area directors in the working group's area as owners.  If
       the responsible AD for the working group is from another area,
       that AD will be an owner as well.

   4.  Initialize the organization with a team that has administrator
       access.  This team will consist of the working group chairs and
       working group secretary, if one exists.

   After the organization is created, the URL for the organization would
   be added to the working group's page in the Datatracker.

   Steps 3 and 4 above imply that the GitHub identities of the
   organization owners and administrators are known.  Recording GitHub
   identities in the Datatracker (see
   <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/2548>) would
   facilitate this.  The person requesting the organization would need
   to be notified if the GitHub identities of any of the people meant to
   be owners or administrators were not available.

Maybe less inspiring is the wording from the following section, which uses
something very close to RFC 6919 "REALLY OUGHT TO" language:

   If a working group already has an organization, it would be useful to
   be able to make it have the same management as one would get with
   going through the steps in Section 2.1
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-05#section-2.1>.
That is, it would be good to
   be able to run steps 3 and 4 from Section 2.1
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-05#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'm inclined to go forward with creating a mops-wg organization on the
assumption that, at worst, we're in the same boat with other WGs using
GitHub, but maybe we should have a consensus call on whether participants
want to incorporate an official GitHub org into their workflows. Otherwise,
individual document teams are still free use unofficial GitHub repos for
revision control and manageability of collaboration, but we would probably
need to be more strict about conducting official work on the mailing list,
which could negate some of the advantages of using GitHub.

Kyle

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:29 PM Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> That’s a good point — it leaves it within the IETF’s purview to identify
> any “authentic” repo.
>
> concern follows on from the IETF’s experience when everybody hosted their
> own WG mailing list (federated responsibility! No single point of failure!)
> and archives were lost when people got irritated with the IETF or companies
> went belly-up.
>
> administration of the git repos, if a group’s work is going to depend on it.
>
> As a co-chair of MOPS, I don’t want to get in the way of providing a tool
> that current participants actually want to use! But, I also want to make
> sure we use it in a way that is going to stand up to the test of time.
>
> Leslie.
>
<quote trimmed>

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 13:09:17 -0500

Hi,

>    be owners or administrators were not available.

Yeah, I think you’re right, that’s probably the best coverage we can 
reasonably implement.

> GitHub, but maybe we should have a consensus call on whether 

I think that’s right — I think we’ve heard support for it for 
documents.  If we want to do more than that with the git repo, we can 
(should) do a consensus call.

As I said — I don’t want to get in the way of implementing tools 
people want, and at this point any remaining concerns I have are not 
MOPS-specific.

Leslie.

>> their

--

---

From: "Holland, Jake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 18:14:43 +0000

>From: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>
>Date: 2020-02-05 at 07:41
>Subject: Re: [Mops] Confirming adoption consensus Re: draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons
>
>want to incorporate an official GitHub org into their workflows.

I'm in favor of an official repo.  I think it's cleaner that way, and
makes it easier to find the most efficient way to contribute.

>Otherwise, individual document teams are still free use unofficial GitHub
>repos for revision control and manageability of collaboration, but we would
>probably need to be more strict about conducting official work on the
>mailing list, which could negate some of the advantages of using GitHub.

However, I don't think it reduces the need to conduct official work on the
mailing list.  In general a lot of the people on the list won't be following
the repo, which can be a little spammy.

But I know some wgs are doing something to send a periodic update to the list
when there are repo changes, which seems like maybe a good idea to copy, (and
perhaps to incorporate into the github usage recommendations) and which could
help sort of automate most of the official business that comes from edits to
the active docs.

Cheers,
Jake