draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration.ab.csv

pr	paths	node_dis_index	pr_dis	para	commentary	commit_s	commit_e	draft	para_hash	block_hash	url	AB	paragraph	mail_commentary
18	{}	{}	{}	"The use of GitHub in IETF working group processes is increasing.
This document describes possible uses and conventions for working
groups which are considering starting to use GitHub.  It does not
mandate any processes, and does not require changes to the processes
used by current and future working groups not using GitHub."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	493ca9eae702e4eae7ddf4253b1ba7620d7a42f0a9bce50ce78d409032f91767	['493ca9eae702e4eae7ddf4253b1ba7620d7a42f0a9bce50ce78d409032f91767', 'd075f2dfaca6c4b332b42049a6f15d2733c74cb460c4075dbd3b21e162cbfef2']		A	"the use of github in ietf working group processes is increasing.
this document describes possible uses and conventions for working
groups which are considering starting to use github.  it does not
mandate any processes, and does not require changes to the processes
used by current and future working groups not using github."	
18	{}	{}	{}	"The use of GitHub in IETF working group processes is increasing.
This document describes uses and conventions for working groups which
are considering starting to use GitHub.  It does not mandate any
processes, and does not require changes to the processes used by
current and future working groups not using GitHub."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	d075f2dfaca6c4b332b42049a6f15d2733c74cb460c4075dbd3b21e162cbfef2	['493ca9eae702e4eae7ddf4253b1ba7620d7a42f0a9bce50ce78d409032f91767', 'd075f2dfaca6c4b332b42049a6f15d2733c74cb460c4075dbd3b21e162cbfef2']		B	"the use of github in ietf working group processes is increasing.
this document describes uses and conventions for working groups which
are considering starting to use github.  it does not mandate any
processes, and does not require changes to the processes used by
current and future working groups not using github."	
18	{0, 1}	{1: 1}	{15: 1}	"This document proposes a set of administrative processes and
conventions for IETF working groups to use if they choose as a
working group to use GitHub to facilitate their work.  The proposals
in this document are not directed at working groups or individuals
that are already using GitHub to do IETF work.  Practices vary among
existing working groups and some of them are not consistent with the
conventions proposed here: that is fine.  The goal of the proposals
in this document is not to require uniformity in current practice,
but to help working groups get started using GitHub in a reviewed and
validated way if desired."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	4b7313a7f273ddf5d12470dd8bc1f47944b25e92bda6950bbadc25b387d83610	['4b7313a7f273ddf5d12470dd8bc1f47944b25e92bda6950bbadc25b387d83610', 'a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8', 'eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f', 'fc03c143707059a31154085deea26a2242d7fe3f3a024fa7888af140f6041c67', '9c4801c681b093b9dc843218bb2fea5801c542b118ce7c4c736cb8dcf5e561f6', 'dc4fdf4f70747f1d09ea29a9c386595620b82d3aff0230e1417c5fe90b61a109', 'c083cccce8ab6ffcce3667475c7314a9d5142ad60575a9640e48f4827797bac8', '2bd2985bdd76326a10c0a13ca7726919e01e1a1de49ce2a4aeba70c1ed4aac33']		A	"this document proposes a set of administrative processes and
conventions for ietf working groups to use if they choose as a
working group to use github to facilitate their work.  the proposals
in this document are not directed at working groups or individuals
that are already using github to do ietf work.  practices vary among
existing working groups and some of them are not consistent with the
conventions proposed here: that is fine.  the goal of the proposals
in this document is not to require uniformity in current practice,
but to help working groups get started using github in a reviewed and
validated way if desired."	
18	{0, 1}	{1: 1}	{15: 1}	"This section specifies a proposal for an administrative process and
conventions to support the creation and management of GitHub
organizations for working groups and single-document repositories in
a uniform way.  The steps could be done manually by the IETF
Secretariat or they could be automated.  See
<https://github.com/richsalz/ietf-gh-scripts> and
<https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template> for working examples
of automation that is in use in some working groups."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8	['4b7313a7f273ddf5d12470dd8bc1f47944b25e92bda6950bbadc25b387d83610', 'a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8', 'eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f', 'fc03c143707059a31154085deea26a2242d7fe3f3a024fa7888af140f6041c67', '9c4801c681b093b9dc843218bb2fea5801c542b118ce7c4c736cb8dcf5e561f6', 'dc4fdf4f70747f1d09ea29a9c386595620b82d3aff0230e1417c5fe90b61a109', 'c083cccce8ab6ffcce3667475c7314a9d5142ad60575a9640e48f4827797bac8', '2bd2985bdd76326a10c0a13ca7726919e01e1a1de49ce2a4aeba70c1ed4aac33']		A	"this section specifies a proposal for an administrative process and
conventions to support the creation and management of github
organizations for working groups and single-document repositories in
a uniform way.  the steps could be done manually by the ietf
secretariat or they could be automated.  see
<https://github.com/richsalz/ietf-gh-scripts> and
<https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template> for working examples
of automation that is in use in some working groups."	
18	{0, 1}	{1: 1}	{15: 1}	"In this document the question of whether processes should be manual
or automated is deliberately left unspecified, since the first
question that should be asked is whether this is functionality the
community would want to have supported at all."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f	['4b7313a7f273ddf5d12470dd8bc1f47944b25e92bda6950bbadc25b387d83610', 'a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8', 'eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f', 'fc03c143707059a31154085deea26a2242d7fe3f3a024fa7888af140f6041c67', '9c4801c681b093b9dc843218bb2fea5801c542b118ce7c4c736cb8dcf5e561f6', 'dc4fdf4f70747f1d09ea29a9c386595620b82d3aff0230e1417c5fe90b61a109', 'c083cccce8ab6ffcce3667475c7314a9d5142ad60575a9640e48f4827797bac8', '2bd2985bdd76326a10c0a13ca7726919e01e1a1de49ce2a4aeba70c1ed4aac33']		A	"in this document the question of whether processes should be manual
or automated is deliberately left unspecified, since the first
question that should be asked is whether this is functionality the
community would want to have supported at all."	
18	{0, 1}	{1: 1}	{15: 1}	"This document proposes that there be a facility in the IETF
Datatracker (<https://datatracker.ietf.org/>) interface to allow an
area director or working group chair to request the creation of a
GitHub organization for a particular working group.  Ideally, this
facility would appear both as part of the working group chartering UI
as well as the working group page UI."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	fc03c143707059a31154085deea26a2242d7fe3f3a024fa7888af140f6041c67	['4b7313a7f273ddf5d12470dd8bc1f47944b25e92bda6950bbadc25b387d83610', 'a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8', 'eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f', 'fc03c143707059a31154085deea26a2242d7fe3f3a024fa7888af140f6041c67', '9c4801c681b093b9dc843218bb2fea5801c542b118ce7c4c736cb8dcf5e561f6', 'dc4fdf4f70747f1d09ea29a9c386595620b82d3aff0230e1417c5fe90b61a109', 'c083cccce8ab6ffcce3667475c7314a9d5142ad60575a9640e48f4827797bac8', '2bd2985bdd76326a10c0a13ca7726919e01e1a1de49ce2a4aeba70c1ed4aac33']		A	"this document proposes that there be a facility in the ietf
datatracker (<https://datatracker.ietf.org/>) interface to allow an
area director or working group chair to request the creation of a
github organization for a particular working group.  ideally, this
facility would appear both as part of the working group chartering ui
as well as the working group page ui."	
18	{0, 1}	{1: 1}	{15: 1}	"This document specifies a set of administrative processes and
conventions for IETF working groups to use if they choose as a
working group to use GitHub to facilitate their work.  The
specifications in this document are not directed at working groups or
individuals that are already using GitHub to do IETF work.  Practices
vary among existing working groups and some of them are not
consistent with the conventions proposed here: that is fine.  The
goal of the specifications in this document is not to require
uniformity in current practice, but to help working groups get
started using GitHub in a reviewed and validated way if desired."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	9c4801c681b093b9dc843218bb2fea5801c542b118ce7c4c736cb8dcf5e561f6	['4b7313a7f273ddf5d12470dd8bc1f47944b25e92bda6950bbadc25b387d83610', 'a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8', 'eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f', 'fc03c143707059a31154085deea26a2242d7fe3f3a024fa7888af140f6041c67', '9c4801c681b093b9dc843218bb2fea5801c542b118ce7c4c736cb8dcf5e561f6', 'dc4fdf4f70747f1d09ea29a9c386595620b82d3aff0230e1417c5fe90b61a109', 'c083cccce8ab6ffcce3667475c7314a9d5142ad60575a9640e48f4827797bac8', '2bd2985bdd76326a10c0a13ca7726919e01e1a1de49ce2a4aeba70c1ed4aac33']		B	"this document specifies a set of administrative processes and
conventions for ietf working groups to use if they choose as a
working group to use github to facilitate their work.  the
specifications in this document are not directed at working groups or
individuals that are already using github to do ietf work.  practices
vary among existing working groups and some of them are not
consistent with the conventions proposed here: that is fine.  the
goal of the specifications in this document is not to require
uniformity in current practice, but to help working groups get
started using github in a reviewed and validated way if desired."	
18	{0, 1}	{1: 1}	{15: 1}	"This section specifies an administrative process and conventions to
support the creation and management of GitHub organizations for
working groups and single-document repositories in a uniform way.
The steps may be done manually by the IETF Secretariat or they may be
automated.  See <https://github.com/richsalz/ietf-gh-scripts> and
<https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template> for working examples
of automation that is in use in some working groups."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	dc4fdf4f70747f1d09ea29a9c386595620b82d3aff0230e1417c5fe90b61a109	['4b7313a7f273ddf5d12470dd8bc1f47944b25e92bda6950bbadc25b387d83610', 'a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8', 'eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f', 'fc03c143707059a31154085deea26a2242d7fe3f3a024fa7888af140f6041c67', '9c4801c681b093b9dc843218bb2fea5801c542b118ce7c4c736cb8dcf5e561f6', 'dc4fdf4f70747f1d09ea29a9c386595620b82d3aff0230e1417c5fe90b61a109', 'c083cccce8ab6ffcce3667475c7314a9d5142ad60575a9640e48f4827797bac8', '2bd2985bdd76326a10c0a13ca7726919e01e1a1de49ce2a4aeba70c1ed4aac33']		B	"this section specifies an administrative process and conventions to
support the creation and management of github organizations for
working groups and single-document repositories in a uniform way.
the steps may be done manually by the ietf secretariat or they may be
automated.  see <https://github.com/richsalz/ietf-gh-scripts> and
<https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template> for working examples
of automation that is in use in some working groups."	
18	{0, 1}	{1: 1}	{15: 1}	"In this document the question of whether processes should be manual
or automated is deliberately left unspecified, since these are
implementation details that the IETF Secretariat and Tools Team will
address."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	c083cccce8ab6ffcce3667475c7314a9d5142ad60575a9640e48f4827797bac8	['4b7313a7f273ddf5d12470dd8bc1f47944b25e92bda6950bbadc25b387d83610', 'a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8', 'eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f', 'fc03c143707059a31154085deea26a2242d7fe3f3a024fa7888af140f6041c67', '9c4801c681b093b9dc843218bb2fea5801c542b118ce7c4c736cb8dcf5e561f6', 'dc4fdf4f70747f1d09ea29a9c386595620b82d3aff0230e1417c5fe90b61a109', 'c083cccce8ab6ffcce3667475c7314a9d5142ad60575a9640e48f4827797bac8', '2bd2985bdd76326a10c0a13ca7726919e01e1a1de49ce2a4aeba70c1ed4aac33']		B	"in this document the question of whether processes should be manual
or automated is deliberately left unspecified, since these are
implementation details that the ietf secretariat and tools team will
address."	
18	{0, 1}	{1: 1}	{15: 1}	"This document specifies that there be a facility in the IETF
Datatracker (<https://datatracker.ietf.org/>) interface to allow an
area director or working group chair to request the creation of a
GitHub organization for a particular working group.  Ideally, this
facility would appear both as part of the working group chartering UI
as well as the working group page UI."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	2bd2985bdd76326a10c0a13ca7726919e01e1a1de49ce2a4aeba70c1ed4aac33	['4b7313a7f273ddf5d12470dd8bc1f47944b25e92bda6950bbadc25b387d83610', 'a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8', 'eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f', 'fc03c143707059a31154085deea26a2242d7fe3f3a024fa7888af140f6041c67', '9c4801c681b093b9dc843218bb2fea5801c542b118ce7c4c736cb8dcf5e561f6', 'dc4fdf4f70747f1d09ea29a9c386595620b82d3aff0230e1417c5fe90b61a109', 'c083cccce8ab6ffcce3667475c7314a9d5142ad60575a9640e48f4827797bac8', '2bd2985bdd76326a10c0a13ca7726919e01e1a1de49ce2a4aeba70c1ed4aac33']		B	"this document specifies that there be a facility in the ietf
datatracker (<https://datatracker.ietf.org/>) interface to allow an
area director or working group chair to request the creation of a
github organization for a particular working group.  ideally, this
facility would appear both as part of the working group chartering ui
as well as the working group page ui."	
18	{}	{}	{}	"When there are personnel changes in the area or the working group,
those changes would be reflected in the GitHub organization.  There
should likely be an ability in the Datatracker to specify that there
were personnel changes."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	12b67dc6989c30a79799bb2eaffabb9b23058244f61e9e5a740568362b341db9	['12b67dc6989c30a79799bb2eaffabb9b23058244f61e9e5a740568362b341db9', 'b96703110d157ee165180bf930f676e3010a8e1b1b4ead79c60cb01781c747d7']		A	"when there are personnel changes in the area or the working group,
those changes would be reflected in the github organization.  there
should likely be an ability in the datatracker to specify that there
were personnel changes."	
18	{}	{}	{}	"When there are personnel changes in the area or the working group,
those changes would be reflected in the GitHub organization.  There
should be an ability in the Datatracker to specify that there were
personnel changes."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	b96703110d157ee165180bf930f676e3010a8e1b1b4ead79c60cb01781c747d7	['12b67dc6989c30a79799bb2eaffabb9b23058244f61e9e5a740568362b341db9', 'b96703110d157ee165180bf930f676e3010a8e1b1b4ead79c60cb01781c747d7']		B	"when there are personnel changes in the area or the working group,
those changes would be reflected in the github organization.  there
should be an ability in the datatracker to specify that there were
personnel changes."	
18	{}	{}	{}	"I-D.ietf-git-using-github contains discussion of the different
possible ways that a working group can use GitHub and the large
number of decisions associated with doing so.  This section proposes
a basic set of administrative policies for working groups to follow
and the administrative support needed to carry out those policies."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	d52f3efece3366b8d7b740402380c0e198a167588d8a4b89926d016bfafd4801	['d52f3efece3366b8d7b740402380c0e198a167588d8a4b89926d016bfafd4801', 'a8a62de7d1435b7fdc6ab6144401c391f7e144887b2e816b3cf2018b2b44836b']		A	"i-d.ietf-git-using-github contains discussion of the different
possible ways that a working group can use github and the large
number of decisions associated with doing so.  this section proposes
a basic set of administrative policies for working groups to follow
and the administrative support needed to carry out those policies."	
18	{}	{}	{}	"I-D.ietf-git-using-github contains discussion of the different
possible ways that a working group can use GitHub and the large
number of decisions associated with doing so.  This section specifies
a basic set of administrative policies for working groups to follow
and the administrative support needed to carry out those policies."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	a8a62de7d1435b7fdc6ab6144401c391f7e144887b2e816b3cf2018b2b44836b	['d52f3efece3366b8d7b740402380c0e198a167588d8a4b89926d016bfafd4801', 'a8a62de7d1435b7fdc6ab6144401c391f7e144887b2e816b3cf2018b2b44836b']		B	"i-d.ietf-git-using-github contains discussion of the different
possible ways that a working group can use github and the large
number of decisions associated with doing so.  this section specifies
a basic set of administrative policies for working groups to follow
and the administrative support needed to carry out those policies."	
18	{}	{}	{}	"Working group GitHub content needs to also be backed up and publicly
archived.  This document proposes using the git protocol git-protocol
itself for both of these tasks."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	8fbd042cc7eb62992e58fae602521459bb9f3330671d4f02a65a27c5741683bd	['8fbd042cc7eb62992e58fae602521459bb9f3330671d4f02a65a27c5741683bd', '42fe570eec5163d78ef9bd478edea14abd8cec5c3c0e2f7798b45d3be0cc9bde']		A	"working group github content needs to also be backed up and publicly
archived.  this document proposes using the git protocol git-protocol
itself for both of these tasks."	
18	{}	{}	{}	"Working group GitHub content needs to also be backed up and publicly
archived.  This document specifies using the git protocol git-
protocol itself for both of these tasks."	And other changes to address AD comments about the value of the document .	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	d79be5e77bd73bd081662aa0a90192ead6e9a2e1	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	42fe570eec5163d78ef9bd478edea14abd8cec5c3c0e2f7798b45d3be0cc9bde	['8fbd042cc7eb62992e58fae602521459bb9f3330671d4f02a65a27c5741683bd', '42fe570eec5163d78ef9bd478edea14abd8cec5c3c0e2f7798b45d3be0cc9bde']		B	"working group github content needs to also be backed up and publicly
archived.  this document specifies using the git protocol git-
protocol itself for both of these tasks."	
15	{}	{}	{}	"The document is meant to spur discussion in the IETF community.  If
there proves to be rough consensus in the community in support of the
proposals in this document, the functional requirements would need to
be discussed with the IETF Tools Team, and the IETF Secretariat who
would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein."	"See 
 I 'm good with all the changes except the one I commented on ."	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	0d02c97e97cfa570808ddc4f8ea55da4fef798b88fc4afc42cea931749a9d31e	['0d02c97e97cfa570808ddc4f8ea55da4fef798b88fc4afc42cea931749a9d31e', '7e6681f01576240ac599e16f030c6dd4e595bad833c942785982d514598f1280']	https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/oM3GP2LJq9UeJrjNu8sK0tpYacM/	A	"the document is meant to spur discussion in the ietf community.  if
there proves to be rough consensus in the community in support of the
proposals in this document, the functional requirements would need to
be discussed with the ietf tools team, and the ietf secretariat who
would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein."	I ’ ve picked this document up as responsible AD , because is an author on the document . There ’s one item in my review that I ’d like to have addressed before this goes out for last call ; the rest do n’t need to block last call , but they should be easy to address . Blocking comment : — Section 2.4 — When a working group is closed , the team with administrative access would be removed and the owner list would be returned to its initial composition . What “ initial composition ” ? The Secretariat and the ADs at the time the organization was created ? That does n’t make sense . The Secretariat and current ADs at the time of closing ? That ’s not “ initial ” . Or do you have something else in mind ? The rest : — Abstract — Just a note here that the second paragraph should be removed before publication . I ’ ve put this in as an RFC Editor Note . — Section 1 — proposals in this document , the functional requirements would need to be discussed with the IETF Tools Team , and the IETF Secretariat who would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein . Nit : the comma after “ Tools Team ” is misplaced , and should be after “ Secretariat ” instead . — Section 2 — For example , see and for working examples of automation that is in use in some working groups . Two things here : 1 . Nit : “ For example … for working examples ” is redundant ; I suggest starting the sentence with “ See ” . 2 . I ’ m not sure that these URLs will stand the test of time , remaining valid in an archival document . On the other hand , having them here as examples is certainly useful . Perhaps we could archive them on an page , or perhaps the RFC Editor could do so on an rfc- page ? In this document the question of whether processes should be manual or automated is deliberately left ambiguous “ Ambiguous ” is  the right word — it carries a connotation of confusion . I suggest “ unspecified ” . And there needs to be a comma after that word , whichever we choose . — Section 2.2 — be able to run steps 3 and 4 from 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 find this awkward ; I think it needs commas and a minor edit : NEW be able to run steps 3 and 4 from Section 2.1 so that the rest of the activities in this section , such as personnel changes , work the same way as for organizations that were created as specified herein . END — Section 2.5 — o Creating a new repository for an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ; What does “ an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ” mean ? — Section 4 — An attacker who can change the contents of Internet Drafts , particularly late in a working group 's process , can possibly cause unnoticed changes in protocols that are eventually adopted . Indeed , and so should we propose any mitigations ? Using a github instance that ’s maintained and secured under ? At the very least we ’ll need to rely on careful review during the publication process , including verifying what changes were made at each step and flagging questionable changes . The text here should probably say something more .
15	{}	{}	{}	"The document is meant to spur discussion in the IETF community.  If
there proves to be rough consensus in the community in support of the
proposals in this document, the functional requirements would need to
be discussed with the IETF Tools Team and the IETF Secretariat, who
would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein."	"See 
 I 'm good with all the changes except the one I commented on ."	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	7e6681f01576240ac599e16f030c6dd4e595bad833c942785982d514598f1280	['0d02c97e97cfa570808ddc4f8ea55da4fef798b88fc4afc42cea931749a9d31e', '7e6681f01576240ac599e16f030c6dd4e595bad833c942785982d514598f1280']	https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/oM3GP2LJq9UeJrjNu8sK0tpYacM/	B	"the document is meant to spur discussion in the ietf community.  if
there proves to be rough consensus in the community in support of the
proposals in this document, the functional requirements would need to
be discussed with the ietf tools team and the ietf secretariat, who
would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein."	I ’ ve picked this document up as responsible AD , because is an author on the document . There ’s one item in my review that I ’d like to have addressed before this goes out for last call ; the rest do n’t need to block last call , but they should be easy to address . Blocking comment : — Section 2.4 — When a working group is closed , the team with administrative access would be removed and the owner list would be returned to its initial composition . What “ initial composition ” ? The Secretariat and the ADs at the time the organization was created ? That does n’t make sense . The Secretariat and current ADs at the time of closing ? That ’s not “ initial ” . Or do you have something else in mind ? The rest : — Abstract — Just a note here that the second paragraph should be removed before publication . I ’ ve put this in as an RFC Editor Note . — Section 1 — proposals in this document , the functional requirements would need to be discussed with the IETF Tools Team , and the IETF Secretariat who would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein . Nit : the comma after “ Tools Team ” is misplaced , and should be after “ Secretariat ” instead . — Section 2 — For example , see and for working examples of automation that is in use in some working groups . Two things here : 1 . Nit : “ For example … for working examples ” is redundant ; I suggest starting the sentence with “ See ” . 2 . I ’ m not sure that these URLs will stand the test of time , remaining valid in an archival document . On the other hand , having them here as examples is certainly useful . Perhaps we could archive them on an page , or perhaps the RFC Editor could do so on an rfc- page ? In this document the question of whether processes should be manual or automated is deliberately left ambiguous “ Ambiguous ” is  the right word — it carries a connotation of confusion . I suggest “ unspecified ” . And there needs to be a comma after that word , whichever we choose . — Section 2.2 — be able to run steps 3 and 4 from 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 find this awkward ; I think it needs commas and a minor edit : NEW be able to run steps 3 and 4 from Section 2.1 so that the rest of the activities in this section , such as personnel changes , work the same way as for organizations that were created as specified herein . END — Section 2.5 — o Creating a new repository for an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ; What does “ an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ” mean ? — Section 4 — An attacker who can change the contents of Internet Drafts , particularly late in a working group 's process , can possibly cause unnoticed changes in protocols that are eventually adopted . Indeed , and so should we propose any mitigations ? Using a github instance that ’s maintained and secured under ? At the very least we ’ll need to rely on careful review during the publication process , including verifying what changes were made at each step and flagging questionable changes . The text here should probably say something more .
15	{0, 1}	{0: 1}	{18: 1}	"This section specifies a proposal for an administrative process and
conventions to support the creation and management of GitHub
organizations for working groups and single-document repositories in
a uniform way.  The steps could be done manually by the IETF
Secretariat or they could be automated.  For example, see
<https://github.com/richsalz/ietf-gh-scripts> and
<https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template> for working examples
of automation that is in use in some working groups."	"See 
 I 'm good with all the changes except the one I commented on ."	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	955c26f1e291c6318f9c27fa346fe5f1cb12dee13530d220e8c3ec7d4e818fee	['955c26f1e291c6318f9c27fa346fe5f1cb12dee13530d220e8c3ec7d4e818fee', '6cab0869e632a942b34ad8285f4b0a4ce14e7c7b19c3b32d24e38f3a4b95d0d0', 'a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8', 'eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f']	https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/oM3GP2LJq9UeJrjNu8sK0tpYacM/	A	"this section specifies a proposal for an administrative process and
conventions to support the creation and management of github
organizations for working groups and single-document repositories in
a uniform way.  the steps could be done manually by the ietf
secretariat or they could be automated.  for example, see
<https://github.com/richsalz/ietf-gh-scripts> and
<https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template> for working examples
of automation that is in use in some working groups."	I ’ ve picked this document up as responsible AD , because is an author on the document . There ’s one item in my review that I ’d like to have addressed before this goes out for last call ; the rest do n’t need to block last call , but they should be easy to address . Blocking comment : — Section 2.4 — When a working group is closed , the team with administrative access would be removed and the owner list would be returned to its initial composition . What “ initial composition ” ? The Secretariat and the ADs at the time the organization was created ? That does n’t make sense . The Secretariat and current ADs at the time of closing ? That ’s not “ initial ” . Or do you have something else in mind ? The rest : — Abstract — Just a note here that the second paragraph should be removed before publication . I ’ ve put this in as an RFC Editor Note . — Section 1 — proposals in this document , the functional requirements would need to be discussed with the IETF Tools Team , and the IETF Secretariat who would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein . Nit : the comma after “ Tools Team ” is misplaced , and should be after “ Secretariat ” instead . — Section 2 — For example , see and for working examples of automation that is in use in some working groups . Two things here : 1 . Nit : “ For example … for working examples ” is redundant ; I suggest starting the sentence with “ See ” . 2 . I ’ m not sure that these URLs will stand the test of time , remaining valid in an archival document . On the other hand , having them here as examples is certainly useful . Perhaps we could archive them on an page , or perhaps the RFC Editor could do so on an rfc- page ? In this document the question of whether processes should be manual or automated is deliberately left ambiguous “ Ambiguous ” is  the right word — it carries a connotation of confusion . I suggest “ unspecified ” . And there needs to be a comma after that word , whichever we choose . — Section 2.2 — be able to run steps 3 and 4 from 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 find this awkward ; I think it needs commas and a minor edit : NEW be able to run steps 3 and 4 from Section 2.1 so that the rest of the activities in this section , such as personnel changes , work the same way as for organizations that were created as specified herein . END — Section 2.5 — o Creating a new repository for an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ; What does “ an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ” mean ? — Section 4 — An attacker who can change the contents of Internet Drafts , particularly late in a working group 's process , can possibly cause unnoticed changes in protocols that are eventually adopted . Indeed , and so should we propose any mitigations ? Using a github instance that ’s maintained and secured under ? At the very least we ’ll need to rely on careful review during the publication process , including verifying what changes were made at each step and flagging questionable changes . The text here should probably say something more .
15	{0, 1}	{0: 1}	{18: 1}	"In this document the question of whether processes should be manual
or automated is deliberately left ambiguous since the first question
that should be asked is whether this is functionality the community
would want to have supported at all."	"See 
 I 'm good with all the changes except the one I commented on ."	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	6cab0869e632a942b34ad8285f4b0a4ce14e7c7b19c3b32d24e38f3a4b95d0d0	['955c26f1e291c6318f9c27fa346fe5f1cb12dee13530d220e8c3ec7d4e818fee', '6cab0869e632a942b34ad8285f4b0a4ce14e7c7b19c3b32d24e38f3a4b95d0d0', 'a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8', 'eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f']	https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/oM3GP2LJq9UeJrjNu8sK0tpYacM/	A	"in this document the question of whether processes should be manual
or automated is deliberately left ambiguous since the first question
that should be asked is whether this is functionality the community
would want to have supported at all."	I ’ ve picked this document up as responsible AD , because is an author on the document . There ’s one item in my review that I ’d like to have addressed before this goes out for last call ; the rest do n’t need to block last call , but they should be easy to address . Blocking comment : — Section 2.4 — When a working group is closed , the team with administrative access would be removed and the owner list would be returned to its initial composition . What “ initial composition ” ? The Secretariat and the ADs at the time the organization was created ? That does n’t make sense . The Secretariat and current ADs at the time of closing ? That ’s not “ initial ” . Or do you have something else in mind ? The rest : — Abstract — Just a note here that the second paragraph should be removed before publication . I ’ ve put this in as an RFC Editor Note . — Section 1 — proposals in this document , the functional requirements would need to be discussed with the IETF Tools Team , and the IETF Secretariat who would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein . Nit : the comma after “ Tools Team ” is misplaced , and should be after “ Secretariat ” instead . — Section 2 — For example , see and for working examples of automation that is in use in some working groups . Two things here : 1 . Nit : “ For example … for working examples ” is redundant ; I suggest starting the sentence with “ See ” . 2 . I ’ m not sure that these URLs will stand the test of time , remaining valid in an archival document . On the other hand , having them here as examples is certainly useful . Perhaps we could archive them on an page , or perhaps the RFC Editor could do so on an rfc- page ? In this document the question of whether processes should be manual or automated is deliberately left ambiguous “ Ambiguous ” is  the right word — it carries a connotation of confusion . I suggest “ unspecified ” . And there needs to be a comma after that word , whichever we choose . — Section 2.2 — be able to run steps 3 and 4 from 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 find this awkward ; I think it needs commas and a minor edit : NEW be able to run steps 3 and 4 from Section 2.1 so that the rest of the activities in this section , such as personnel changes , work the same way as for organizations that were created as specified herein . END — Section 2.5 — o Creating a new repository for an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ; What does “ an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ” mean ? — Section 4 — An attacker who can change the contents of Internet Drafts , particularly late in a working group 's process , can possibly cause unnoticed changes in protocols that are eventually adopted . Indeed , and so should we propose any mitigations ? Using a github instance that ’s maintained and secured under ? At the very least we ’ll need to rely on careful review during the publication process , including verifying what changes were made at each step and flagging questionable changes . The text here should probably say something more .
15	{0, 1}	{0: 1}	{18: 1}	"This section specifies a proposal for an administrative process and
conventions to support the creation and management of GitHub
organizations for working groups and single-document repositories in
a uniform way.  The steps could be done manually by the IETF
Secretariat or they could be automated.  See
<https://github.com/richsalz/ietf-gh-scripts> and
<https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template> for working examples
of automation that is in use in some working groups."	"See 
 I 'm good with all the changes except the one I commented on ."	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8	['955c26f1e291c6318f9c27fa346fe5f1cb12dee13530d220e8c3ec7d4e818fee', '6cab0869e632a942b34ad8285f4b0a4ce14e7c7b19c3b32d24e38f3a4b95d0d0', 'a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8', 'eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f']	https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/oM3GP2LJq9UeJrjNu8sK0tpYacM/	B	"this section specifies a proposal for an administrative process and
conventions to support the creation and management of github
organizations for working groups and single-document repositories in
a uniform way.  the steps could be done manually by the ietf
secretariat or they could be automated.  see
<https://github.com/richsalz/ietf-gh-scripts> and
<https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template> for working examples
of automation that is in use in some working groups."	I ’ ve picked this document up as responsible AD , because is an author on the document . There ’s one item in my review that I ’d like to have addressed before this goes out for last call ; the rest do n’t need to block last call , but they should be easy to address . Blocking comment : — Section 2.4 — When a working group is closed , the team with administrative access would be removed and the owner list would be returned to its initial composition . What “ initial composition ” ? The Secretariat and the ADs at the time the organization was created ? That does n’t make sense . The Secretariat and current ADs at the time of closing ? That ’s not “ initial ” . Or do you have something else in mind ? The rest : — Abstract — Just a note here that the second paragraph should be removed before publication . I ’ ve put this in as an RFC Editor Note . — Section 1 — proposals in this document , the functional requirements would need to be discussed with the IETF Tools Team , and the IETF Secretariat who would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein . Nit : the comma after “ Tools Team ” is misplaced , and should be after “ Secretariat ” instead . — Section 2 — For example , see and for working examples of automation that is in use in some working groups . Two things here : 1 . Nit : “ For example … for working examples ” is redundant ; I suggest starting the sentence with “ See ” . 2 . I ’ m not sure that these URLs will stand the test of time , remaining valid in an archival document . On the other hand , having them here as examples is certainly useful . Perhaps we could archive them on an page , or perhaps the RFC Editor could do so on an rfc- page ? In this document the question of whether processes should be manual or automated is deliberately left ambiguous “ Ambiguous ” is  the right word — it carries a connotation of confusion . I suggest “ unspecified ” . And there needs to be a comma after that word , whichever we choose . — Section 2.2 — be able to run steps 3 and 4 from 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 find this awkward ; I think it needs commas and a minor edit : NEW be able to run steps 3 and 4 from Section 2.1 so that the rest of the activities in this section , such as personnel changes , work the same way as for organizations that were created as specified herein . END — Section 2.5 — o Creating a new repository for an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ; What does “ an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ” mean ? — Section 4 — An attacker who can change the contents of Internet Drafts , particularly late in a working group 's process , can possibly cause unnoticed changes in protocols that are eventually adopted . Indeed , and so should we propose any mitigations ? Using a github instance that ’s maintained and secured under ? At the very least we ’ll need to rely on careful review during the publication process , including verifying what changes were made at each step and flagging questionable changes . The text here should probably say something more .
15	{0, 1}	{0: 1}	{18: 1}	"In this document the question of whether processes should be manual
or automated is deliberately left unspecified, since the first
question that should be asked is whether this is functionality the
community would want to have supported at all."	"See 
 I 'm good with all the changes except the one I commented on ."	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f	['955c26f1e291c6318f9c27fa346fe5f1cb12dee13530d220e8c3ec7d4e818fee', '6cab0869e632a942b34ad8285f4b0a4ce14e7c7b19c3b32d24e38f3a4b95d0d0', 'a4cf3415eb972caad16daa777122f02ab043aded775d38241444408c73227dc8', 'eeba4bd5bf026a4fc5c36df924c6051b26ff27f19874ce36fa9b7a154b809c4f']	https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/oM3GP2LJq9UeJrjNu8sK0tpYacM/	B	"in this document the question of whether processes should be manual
or automated is deliberately left unspecified, since the first
question that should be asked is whether this is functionality the
community would want to have supported at all."	I ’ ve picked this document up as responsible AD , because is an author on the document . There ’s one item in my review that I ’d like to have addressed before this goes out for last call ; the rest do n’t need to block last call , but they should be easy to address . Blocking comment : — Section 2.4 — When a working group is closed , the team with administrative access would be removed and the owner list would be returned to its initial composition . What “ initial composition ” ? The Secretariat and the ADs at the time the organization was created ? That does n’t make sense . The Secretariat and current ADs at the time of closing ? That ’s not “ initial ” . Or do you have something else in mind ? The rest : — Abstract — Just a note here that the second paragraph should be removed before publication . I ’ ve put this in as an RFC Editor Note . — Section 1 — proposals in this document , the functional requirements would need to be discussed with the IETF Tools Team , and the IETF Secretariat who would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein . Nit : the comma after “ Tools Team ” is misplaced , and should be after “ Secretariat ” instead . — Section 2 — For example , see and for working examples of automation that is in use in some working groups . Two things here : 1 . Nit : “ For example … for working examples ” is redundant ; I suggest starting the sentence with “ See ” . 2 . I ’ m not sure that these URLs will stand the test of time , remaining valid in an archival document . On the other hand , having them here as examples is certainly useful . Perhaps we could archive them on an page , or perhaps the RFC Editor could do so on an rfc- page ? In this document the question of whether processes should be manual or automated is deliberately left ambiguous “ Ambiguous ” is  the right word — it carries a connotation of confusion . I suggest “ unspecified ” . And there needs to be a comma after that word , whichever we choose . — Section 2.2 — be able to run steps 3 and 4 from 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 find this awkward ; I think it needs commas and a minor edit : NEW be able to run steps 3 and 4 from Section 2.1 so that the rest of the activities in this section , such as personnel changes , work the same way as for organizations that were created as specified herein . END — Section 2.5 — o Creating a new repository for an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ; What does “ an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ” mean ? — Section 4 — An attacker who can change the contents of Internet Drafts , particularly late in a working group 's process , can possibly cause unnoticed changes in protocols that are eventually adopted . Indeed , and so should we propose any mitigations ? Using a github instance that ’s maintained and secured under ? At the very least we ’ll need to rely on careful review during the publication process , including verifying what changes were made at each step and flagging questionable changes . The text here should probably say something more .
15	{}	{}	{}	"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 creation.  That is, it would be good to be
able to run steps 3 and 4 from creation 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."	"See 
 I 'm good with all the changes except the one I commented on ."	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	91f5ee66d3ef1bb024e32363a79b5abc2bf6254e12f291d1ecf2df1d24bb3f22	['91f5ee66d3ef1bb024e32363a79b5abc2bf6254e12f291d1ecf2df1d24bb3f22', '0fa3a6417db7a0624b9d664653de32fc0c695a8c5be0c07e3cbc89eaabf9beab']	https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/oM3GP2LJq9UeJrjNu8sK0tpYacM/	A	"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 creation.  that is, it would be good to be
able to run steps 3 and 4 from creation 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 ’ ve picked this document up as responsible AD , because is an author on the document . There ’s one item in my review that I ’d like to have addressed before this goes out for last call ; the rest do n’t need to block last call , but they should be easy to address . Blocking comment : — Section 2.4 — When a working group is closed , the team with administrative access would be removed and the owner list would be returned to its initial composition . What “ initial composition ” ? The Secretariat and the ADs at the time the organization was created ? That does n’t make sense . The Secretariat and current ADs at the time of closing ? That ’s not “ initial ” . Or do you have something else in mind ? The rest : — Abstract — Just a note here that the second paragraph should be removed before publication . I ’ ve put this in as an RFC Editor Note . — Section 1 — proposals in this document , the functional requirements would need to be discussed with the IETF Tools Team , and the IETF Secretariat who would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein . Nit : the comma after “ Tools Team ” is misplaced , and should be after “ Secretariat ” instead . — Section 2 — For example , see and for working examples of automation that is in use in some working groups . Two things here : 1 . Nit : “ For example … for working examples ” is redundant ; I suggest starting the sentence with “ See ” . 2 . I ’ m not sure that these URLs will stand the test of time , remaining valid in an archival document . On the other hand , having them here as examples is certainly useful . Perhaps we could archive them on an page , or perhaps the RFC Editor could do so on an rfc- page ? In this document the question of whether processes should be manual or automated is deliberately left ambiguous “ Ambiguous ” is  the right word — it carries a connotation of confusion . I suggest “ unspecified ” . And there needs to be a comma after that word , whichever we choose . — Section 2.2 — be able to run steps 3 and 4 from 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 find this awkward ; I think it needs commas and a minor edit : NEW be able to run steps 3 and 4 from Section 2.1 so that the rest of the activities in this section , such as personnel changes , work the same way as for organizations that were created as specified herein . END — Section 2.5 — o Creating a new repository for an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ; What does “ an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ” mean ? — Section 4 — An attacker who can change the contents of Internet Drafts , particularly late in a working group 's process , can possibly cause unnoticed changes in protocols that are eventually adopted . Indeed , and so should we propose any mitigations ? Using a github instance that ’s maintained and secured under ? At the very least we ’ll need to rely on careful review during the publication process , including verifying what changes were made at each step and flagging questionable changes . The text here should probably say something more .
15	{}	{}	{}	"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 creation.  That is, it would be good to be
able to run steps 3 and 4 from creation so that the rest of the
activities in this section, such as personnel changes, work the same
way as for organizations that were created as specified herein."	"See 
 I 'm good with all the changes except the one I commented on ."	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	0fa3a6417db7a0624b9d664653de32fc0c695a8c5be0c07e3cbc89eaabf9beab	['91f5ee66d3ef1bb024e32363a79b5abc2bf6254e12f291d1ecf2df1d24bb3f22', '0fa3a6417db7a0624b9d664653de32fc0c695a8c5be0c07e3cbc89eaabf9beab']	https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/oM3GP2LJq9UeJrjNu8sK0tpYacM/	B	"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 creation.  that is, it would be good to be
able to run steps 3 and 4 from creation so that the rest of the
activities in this section, such as personnel changes, work the same
way as for organizations that were created as specified herein."	I ’ ve picked this document up as responsible AD , because is an author on the document . There ’s one item in my review that I ’d like to have addressed before this goes out for last call ; the rest do n’t need to block last call , but they should be easy to address . Blocking comment : — Section 2.4 — When a working group is closed , the team with administrative access would be removed and the owner list would be returned to its initial composition . What “ initial composition ” ? The Secretariat and the ADs at the time the organization was created ? That does n’t make sense . The Secretariat and current ADs at the time of closing ? That ’s not “ initial ” . Or do you have something else in mind ? The rest : — Abstract — Just a note here that the second paragraph should be removed before publication . I ’ ve put this in as an RFC Editor Note . — Section 1 — proposals in this document , the functional requirements would need to be discussed with the IETF Tools Team , and the IETF Secretariat who would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein . Nit : the comma after “ Tools Team ” is misplaced , and should be after “ Secretariat ” instead . — Section 2 — For example , see and for working examples of automation that is in use in some working groups . Two things here : 1 . Nit : “ For example … for working examples ” is redundant ; I suggest starting the sentence with “ See ” . 2 . I ’ m not sure that these URLs will stand the test of time , remaining valid in an archival document . On the other hand , having them here as examples is certainly useful . Perhaps we could archive them on an page , or perhaps the RFC Editor could do so on an rfc- page ? In this document the question of whether processes should be manual or automated is deliberately left ambiguous “ Ambiguous ” is  the right word — it carries a connotation of confusion . I suggest “ unspecified ” . And there needs to be a comma after that word , whichever we choose . — Section 2.2 — be able to run steps 3 and 4 from 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 find this awkward ; I think it needs commas and a minor edit : NEW be able to run steps 3 and 4 from Section 2.1 so that the rest of the activities in this section , such as personnel changes , work the same way as for organizations that were created as specified herein . END — Section 2.5 — o Creating a new repository for an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ; What does “ an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ” mean ? — Section 4 — An attacker who can change the contents of Internet Drafts , particularly late in a working group 's process , can possibly cause unnoticed changes in protocols that are eventually adopted . Indeed , and so should we propose any mitigations ? Using a github instance that ’s maintained and secured under ? At the very least we ’ll need to rely on careful review during the publication process , including verifying what changes were made at each step and flagging questionable changes . The text here should probably say something more .
15	{}	{}	{}	"When a working group is closed, the team with administrative access
would be removed and the owner list would be returned to its initial
composition.  The organization summary and the repositories within
the organization would be updated to indicate that they are no longer
under development."	"See 
 I 'm good with all the changes except the one I commented on ."	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	cd7ba520cf3532941fe92c3a4ee55511b905e04f06cb6e82a90cc289d3a53199	['cd7ba520cf3532941fe92c3a4ee55511b905e04f06cb6e82a90cc289d3a53199', 'b85b92af5be01b3a6b6bcc6556df9218ced450f9641d6cbddf1eed02b375c7b9']	https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/oM3GP2LJq9UeJrjNu8sK0tpYacM/	A	"when a working group is closed, the team with administrative access
would be removed and the owner list would be returned to its initial
composition.  the organization summary and the repositories within
the organization would be updated to indicate that they are no longer
under development."	I ’ ve picked this document up as responsible AD , because is an author on the document . There ’s one item in my review that I ’d like to have addressed before this goes out for last call ; the rest do n’t need to block last call , but they should be easy to address . Blocking comment : — Section 2.4 — When a working group is closed , the team with administrative access would be removed and the owner list would be returned to its initial composition . What “ initial composition ” ? The Secretariat and the ADs at the time the organization was created ? That does n’t make sense . The Secretariat and current ADs at the time of closing ? That ’s not “ initial ” . Or do you have something else in mind ? The rest : — Abstract — Just a note here that the second paragraph should be removed before publication . I ’ ve put this in as an RFC Editor Note . — Section 1 — proposals in this document , the functional requirements would need to be discussed with the IETF Tools Team , and the IETF Secretariat who would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein . Nit : the comma after “ Tools Team ” is misplaced , and should be after “ Secretariat ” instead . — Section 2 — For example , see and for working examples of automation that is in use in some working groups . Two things here : 1 . Nit : “ For example … for working examples ” is redundant ; I suggest starting the sentence with “ See ” . 2 . I ’ m not sure that these URLs will stand the test of time , remaining valid in an archival document . On the other hand , having them here as examples is certainly useful . Perhaps we could archive them on an page , or perhaps the RFC Editor could do so on an rfc- page ? In this document the question of whether processes should be manual or automated is deliberately left ambiguous “ Ambiguous ” is  the right word — it carries a connotation of confusion . I suggest “ unspecified ” . And there needs to be a comma after that word , whichever we choose . — Section 2.2 — be able to run steps 3 and 4 from 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 find this awkward ; I think it needs commas and a minor edit : NEW be able to run steps 3 and 4 from Section 2.1 so that the rest of the activities in this section , such as personnel changes , work the same way as for organizations that were created as specified herein . END — Section 2.5 — o Creating a new repository for an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ; What does “ an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ” mean ? — Section 4 — An attacker who can change the contents of Internet Drafts , particularly late in a working group 's process , can possibly cause unnoticed changes in protocols that are eventually adopted . Indeed , and so should we propose any mitigations ? Using a github instance that ’s maintained and secured under ? At the very least we ’ll need to rely on careful review during the publication process , including verifying what changes were made at each step and flagging questionable changes . The text here should probably say something more .
15	{}	{}	{}	"When a working group is closed, the team with administrative access
would be removed and the owner list would be returned to the
Secretariat and current ADs at the time of closing.  The organization
summary and the repositories within the organization would be updated
to indicate that they are no longer under development."	"See 
 I 'm good with all the changes except the one I commented on ."	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	a6cf6393ca9b42f4ca218ce82e95849e32ee217f	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	b85b92af5be01b3a6b6bcc6556df9218ced450f9641d6cbddf1eed02b375c7b9	['cd7ba520cf3532941fe92c3a4ee55511b905e04f06cb6e82a90cc289d3a53199', 'b85b92af5be01b3a6b6bcc6556df9218ced450f9641d6cbddf1eed02b375c7b9']	https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/oM3GP2LJq9UeJrjNu8sK0tpYacM/	B	"when a working group is closed, the team with administrative access
would be removed and the owner list would be returned to the
secretariat and current ads at the time of closing.  the organization
summary and the repositories within the organization would be updated
to indicate that they are no longer under development."	I ’ ve picked this document up as responsible AD , because is an author on the document . There ’s one item in my review that I ’d like to have addressed before this goes out for last call ; the rest do n’t need to block last call , but they should be easy to address . Blocking comment : — Section 2.4 — When a working group is closed , the team with administrative access would be removed and the owner list would be returned to its initial composition . What “ initial composition ” ? The Secretariat and the ADs at the time the organization was created ? That does n’t make sense . The Secretariat and current ADs at the time of closing ? That ’s not “ initial ” . Or do you have something else in mind ? The rest : — Abstract — Just a note here that the second paragraph should be removed before publication . I ’ ve put this in as an RFC Editor Note . — Section 1 — proposals in this document , the functional requirements would need to be discussed with the IETF Tools Team , and the IETF Secretariat who would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein . Nit : the comma after “ Tools Team ” is misplaced , and should be after “ Secretariat ” instead . — Section 2 — For example , see and for working examples of automation that is in use in some working groups . Two things here : 1 . Nit : “ For example … for working examples ” is redundant ; I suggest starting the sentence with “ See ” . 2 . I ’ m not sure that these URLs will stand the test of time , remaining valid in an archival document . On the other hand , having them here as examples is certainly useful . Perhaps we could archive them on an page , or perhaps the RFC Editor could do so on an rfc- page ? In this document the question of whether processes should be manual or automated is deliberately left ambiguous “ Ambiguous ” is  the right word — it carries a connotation of confusion . I suggest “ unspecified ” . And there needs to be a comma after that word , whichever we choose . — Section 2.2 — be able to run steps 3 and 4 from 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 find this awkward ; I think it needs commas and a minor edit : NEW be able to run steps 3 and 4 from Section 2.1 so that the rest of the activities in this section , such as personnel changes , work the same way as for organizations that were created as specified herein . END — Section 2.5 — o Creating a new repository for an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ; What does “ an individual draft that is at the discretion of the WG chair ” mean ? — Section 4 — An attacker who can change the contents of Internet Drafts , particularly late in a working group 's process , can possibly cause unnoticed changes in protocols that are eventually adopted . Indeed , and so should we propose any mitigations ? Using a github instance that ’s maintained and secured under ? At the very least we ’ll need to rely on careful review during the publication process , including verifying what changes were made at each step and flagging questionable changes . The text here should probably say something more .
11	{}	{}	{}	"The IETF Datatracker should allow working group chairs to add links
to repositories (for GitHub and other repository services) on the
working group ""About"" page under ""Additional URLs"".  This feature is
already under development."	"This needs to be more concrete than the current text . I just removed the following from -using : organization on the WG Charter page in the datatracker under More  . Similarly , if there are multiple mailing list options , links to those mailing lists should be given . An example of this is at I would n't recommend that exact language , but the the text definitely should mandate some means of linking from working group status pages to the GitHub organization . 
 Sorry to be late on this . I do n't see what more concrete thing you are asking for . The current text already has the steps , including putting a pointer on the WG page ( although not in the charter itself ) . 
 There is work - in - progress to add "" general external references "" to each of users , groups , docs , in datatracker . Some details are in 
 Discussed in Singapore ; will add some text in this document ."	cae80965b367e7b2f6f42cc4a6a06f3b518b8fd7	cae80965b367e7b2f6f42cc4a6a06f3b518b8fd7	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	c0b22cd19650921d2382ccf93bbb4d8910379da8688c479a16001e37cdc57315	['c0b22cd19650921d2382ccf93bbb4d8910379da8688c479a16001e37cdc57315']	"https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/charter/.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/WcM3k0GUQHYvuVTuHV1145fPVWM"	B	"the ietf datatracker should allow working group chairs to add links
to repositories (for github and other repository services) on the
working group ""about"" page under ""additional urls"".  this feature is
already under development."	"migration style . I guess you are initializing things from refnames : value side with a unique i d saved into cache , but I did n't see where you used that . What is migration style ? Where can I find "" typical "" examples to emulate ? The idea is that existing "" additional URLs "" fields -- for example , look at or -- will have those fields that are common ( as specified in the python script ) moved into the new tables . I am calling those new commonly - named things "" extref "" for "" external referfence "" The value is just a string , but the idea is that it is an identifier that is useful in some external context , and having common names for these thing makes more automation possible . For example , a "" GitHub Repository "" extref . We want that name normalized , so that tooling can fetch it . Right now the additional URL 's are a set of text fields , and the names are not consistent : "" repo "" "" GitHub Repository "" "" Repository "" , etc . , are all used . That is the point of the refnames map , to capture all the existing names via regexp and map them into a common name which gets an ID in the external_refs table , which is then used as foreign keys in the "" list of external references "" for each of the person , group , doc , entries . It will not be perfect , but I looked at all the names and in use ( the tables mentioned in the python outline ) and I think it gets almost all things right . I am unsure , for example , of the YANG links ; what tooling of theirs breaks if the name becomes generic ? Perhaps I just do n't remove a link when migrating . What is not shown or done is mapping these extrefs into the source , such as ietf / doc / , and displaying them . That 's the real work , I just want commentary on the data structures first . For example , in I could add a "" standard "" extref that says "" On github I am richsalz "" Then this could be used by scripts to populate repo 's and auto - link back to the DT accounts . Hope that helps you help me help the IETF . :)"
8	{}	{}	{}	"Some working groups choose to have more than one draft in a
repository, particularly for drafts that are tightly linked with
significant cross-references.  In such a case, the README for the
repository needs to say that clearly so that a participant
understands that changes might be made to multiple drafts at once."	The document currently assumes that there is one document per repository . That 's not always the best structure . It 's not uncommon for there to be tight clusters of related documents . QUIC does this ( even though it is likely an outlier in the process ) , but there are also frequent occasions where working groups develop overview documents along with a protocol , or split a document into separate logical pieces ( tokbind did this for TLS bits and HTTP bits ) . is something of a train wreck , but there is plenty of middle - ground here .	cd243b3a7b991499bd903fbffcbb5e05bb550390	cd243b3a7b991499bd903fbffcbb5e05bb550390	draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration	139bc0944dce4fbd23a9f5eced9d0a8b72c1821c0868ffc2ebfc951534f9dd30	['139bc0944dce4fbd23a9f5eced9d0a8b72c1821c0868ffc2ebfc951534f9dd30']	https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions	B	"some working groups choose to have more than one draft in a
repository, particularly for drafts that are tightly linked with
significant cross-references.  in such a case, the readme for the
repository needs to say that clearly so that a participant
understands that changes might be made to multiple drafts at once."