This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
github_auth48_experiment [2018/08/20 14:49] rsewikiadmin Updated with metrics for RFC 8446 |
github_auth48_experiment [2019/02/22 10:05] rsewikiadmin |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
* 2018-03-21: approved for publication as an RFC. | * 2018-03-21: approved for publication as an RFC. | ||
* 2018-06-14: initiated AUTH48. provided XML file as described in step 2 above. | * 2018-06-14: initiated AUTH48. provided XML file as described in step 2 above. | ||
+ | * 2018-08-10: published as RFC 8446 | ||
* **[[https:// | * **[[https:// | ||
* 2018-03-01: approved for publication as an RFC. (in MISSREF because of normative references that are not yet approved) | * 2018-03-01: approved for publication as an RFC. (in MISSREF because of normative references that are not yet approved) | ||
- | * 2018-08-10: published as RFC 8446 | ||
==== Evaluation Criteria ==== | ==== Evaluation Criteria ==== | ||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
* Apr 1 report: 3.4 weeks | * Apr 1 report: 3.4 weeks | ||
* Average time in AUTH48 state for 100+ page standard process documents: | * Average time in AUTH48 state for 100+ page standard process documents: | ||
- | * TBD | + | * Average 7.7 weeks in AUTH48 state for the 16 RFCs over 100 pages (published in 2016 + 2017 + YTD). |
+ | * Average 4.4 weeks in AUTH48 state for the 7 RFCs over 100 pages (published in 2017 + YTD). | ||
+ | * Note: half of the 100+ page documents had an AUTH state (and for those that did, 3.2 weeks were in that state) | ||
* Time in AUTH48 state for this document: | * Time in AUTH48 state for this document: | ||
* 8.2 weeks | * 8.2 weeks | ||
Line 61: | Line 63: | ||
=== Notes === | === Notes === | ||
* future work will require mapping of GitHub account names to Authors, WG Chairs, Document Shepherds, ADs, Stream Managers (possible GDPR implications this information is outside the publishing industry norm for information stored about an individual during a publication process) | * future work will require mapping of GitHub account names to Authors, WG Chairs, Document Shepherds, ADs, Stream Managers (possible GDPR implications this information is outside the publishing industry norm for information stored about an individual during a publication process) | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | === Feedback from Eric Rescorla (author, TLS) === | ||
+ | We experimented with using Github for the publication of TLS 1.3. | ||
+ | The overall process was that Github was used primarily for feedback: | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1. The RFC Editor supplied iterative versions of the XML files. | ||
+ | 2. The draft editor put them up on Github (initially as PRs | ||
+ | and later just as commits) | ||
+ | 3. We used Github' | ||
+ | from the RPC and from the editor/ | ||
+ | 4. The editor provided updated XML from the editor/ | ||
+ | in three ways: | ||
+ | (a) patches | ||
+ | (b) new XML files | ||
+ | (c) OLD/NEW format | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | WHAT WENT WELL | ||
+ | I found Github very useful for refining the precise content of what | ||
+ | we plan to ship. Specifically: | ||
+ | |||
+ | - The RPC makes a lot of changes in their first pass, and so | ||
+ | Github reviews allowed me to individually see, accept, or reject | ||
+ | each one. | ||
+ | |||
+ | - As the editor/ | ||
+ | that interaction and let us only ship when we had refined text. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Having each XML revision in Github also made it possible to do | ||
+ | incremental diffs, which is inconvenient with the current practice | ||
+ | of updating the XML and TXT files on the FTP site with every revision. | ||
+ | In one case, it let us track down when a particular error was | ||
+ | introduced, which was helpful. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | WHAT WENT BADLY | ||
+ | The initial AUTH48 version from the RFC Editor included both textual | ||
+ | changes and whitespace changes. This produced a very large diff which | ||
+ | was difficult to work with. In future, it would work better to have as | ||
+ | many intermediate versions of the XML file as possible (one for each | ||
+ | stage of the process) so that they can be individually reviewed. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Having the RPC email out new XML files and then the editor upload | ||
+ | them is clunky. It would work better if the RPC uploaded them directly | ||
+ | (probably as PRs, though this is TBD). We adopted this strategy to | ||
+ | minimize overhead for the RPC, but it's easy to get lost. Conversely, | ||
+ | having the editor mail new XML to the RPC is clunky. This would | ||
+ | work better if Github were the master copy, which is how we do | ||
+ | things in WGs. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | THOUGHTS FOR FUTURE EXPERIMENTS | ||
+ | This was valuable for me. In previous RFCs I have done it has been | ||
+ | quite hard to keep track of all the changes and this was a bigger | ||
+ | project. As noted above, I found it very useful to be able to | ||
+ | individually see address each change that was made in AUTH48. | ||
+ | However, this hybrid approach where the editor is the interface | ||
+ | between the RPC and Github is awkward. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If we try this again -- and I think we should -- I think we should do | ||
+ | one of two things: | ||
+ | |||
+ | (a) Go full Github and use it the way WGs do. | ||
+ | (b) Limit the RPC's use of Github to seeing the editor comments on | ||
+ | their changes. | ||
+ | |||
+ | From the document editor perspective, | ||
+ | seems like a big jump for the RPC, so we should probably look at (b). | ||
+ | I think the easiest way to do (b) would just be to have two repos: | ||
+ | |||
+ | (a) the master repo which is used just to integrate the RPC's changes | ||
+ | (b) a second repo (the editor' | ||
+ | the changes. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Then we could treat the RPC's changes as PRs against the repo (as | ||
+ | I had originally intended) but they wouldn' | ||
+ | noise from the editor/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Ben also observed that because so much of the value of the RPC-editor | ||
+ | Github interaction is the first set of changes from the RPC (because | ||
+ | that's where most of the comments need to be made) that we could | ||
+ | skip Github entirely for that and just do the comments in Phabricator. | ||
+ | That seems like yet another tool people have to learn, though, so | ||
+ | I tend to think we should stick with Github for that. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | -Ekr | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Feedback from RFC Editor === | ||
+ | This is the consolidated feedback from the RFC Editor regarding the experiment in using GitHub to process the TLS 1.3 document. Please note that this feedback focuses entirely on the GitHub experience; all comments regarding editorial changes are off topic. Also, the markdown conversation (i.e., editing in markdown, choosing a particular flavor of markdown) is also outside the scope of the experiment and this feedback. | ||
+ | |||
+ | tl;dr | ||
+ | GitHub did not improve anything for the RFC Editor, and seemed to replicate and over-complicate the AUTH48 process where the authors and the RPC exchange updated XML files. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | What Went Well: | ||
+ | * The author seemed happier with the interactions with the RFC Editor. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * It was easy for the RFC Editor to download a copy of the revised XML files. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | What Was Challenging: | ||
+ | * This was not a good choice of documents to do an experiment with; the length, criticality, | ||
+ | |||
+ | * While the discrete list in GitHub of each change seemed to make the review easier for the author, it proved to be significantly more difficult for the RPC editor. Rather than have the changes all in one place, this required a lot of clicking to each individual change to review the comments. It was very time consuming. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Being on the " | ||
+ | |||
+ | * The RPC editor' | ||
+ | |||
+ | * In a document that has a large number of AQs (as this one did), the GitHub UI will hide the majority of those questions, along with some of the comments from authors and other reviewers (e.g., "120 hidden conversations" | ||
+ | |||
+ | * There was definitely confusion about how the RPC editors actually edit a document reflected in a request to receive intermediate diff files that show one type of change (header changes only, whitespace changes only, editorial changes only, etc). That is not how documents are edited, and trying to do that would definitely increase the level or work required on the part of the RPC editor. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * " | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Proposed Changes to the next stage of the GitHub Experiment (JSEP draft) | ||
+ | Full detail of the process is here: https:// | ||
+ | * change to step 5 - rather than having the RFC Editor subscribe to all notifications, | ||
+ | |||
+ | * change to step 10- rather than the RFC Editor emailing the link to the latest XML file to the author, the RPC editor will submit it directly to GitHub. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | === Community discussions === | ||
+ | https:// | ||