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 [2019/02/22 10:05] rsewikiadmin |
github_auth48_experiment [2021/02/05 12:22] arusso |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===== Experiment: Using GitHub for AUTH48 ===== | ===== Experiment: Using GitHub for AUTH48 ===== | ||
- | ==== Draft Process ==== | + | This experiment has been run twice (during AUTH48 for RFC 8446 and RFC 8829). The idea was to use GitHub instead of email for AUTH48 state. Details below. |
+ | |||
+ | ^ ^ RFC 8446 | ||
+ | | I-D | [[https:// | ||
+ | | I-D approved | ||
+ | | AUTH48 start | ||
+ | | Publication | ||
+ | | GitHub repo | https:// | ||
+ | ^ AUTH48 details | ||
+ | | Time in state | 8.2 weeks | 28.3 weeks | | ||
+ | | # questions at start | 58 | 60\\ (yielded [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Process | ||
- The author will create a repository with just the XML. We ask that the author not use their existing repository, for various reasons. | - The author will create a repository with just the XML. We ask that the author not use their existing repository, for various reasons. | ||
Line 9: | Line 22: | ||
* status of this memo | * status of this memo | ||
* section movement to meet the style guide requirements (e.g., move acks and contribs to appear at the end) | * section movement to meet the style guide requirements (e.g., move acks and contribs to appear at the end) | ||
- | - RFC Editor goes through the EDIT and RFC EDITOR process states and sends an email with a link to the XML file created in step 2 and the edited XML file at the start of AUTH48. | + | - RFC Editor goes through the EDIT and RFC EDITOR process states and sends an email with a link to the XML file created in step 2 and the edited XML file at the start of AUTH48. |
- At the start of AUTH48, the author will create a Pull Request (PR) with the changes proposed by the RPC. The authors respond and point to the repository they created. | - At the start of AUTH48, the author will create a Pull Request (PR) with the changes proposed by the RPC. The authors respond and point to the repository they created. | ||
- The relevant people from the RPC will subscribe to notifications from that repository using the “Watch” button and confirm they are watching. For this test case, Heather, Adam, and Martin will follow along as well. | - The relevant people from the RPC will subscribe to notifications from that repository using the “Watch” button and confirm they are watching. For this test case, Heather, Adam, and Martin will follow along as well. | ||
Line 21: | Line 34: | ||
- Final approval for the full document needs to result in an explicit email to the the RPC from each author indicating approval. GitHub will be used for editorial discussion, but the final text approval will be done via email. | - Final approval for the full document needs to result in an explicit email to the the RPC from each author indicating approval. GitHub will be used for editorial discussion, but the final text approval will be done via email. | ||
- | ==== Relevant Documents ==== | + | ==== Evaluation Criteria |
- | + | ||
- | * **[[https:// | + | |
- | * 2018-03-21: approved for publication as an RFC. | + | |
- | * 2018-06-14: initiated AUTH48. provided XML file as described | + | |
- | * 2018-08-10: published as RFC 8446 | + | |
- | * **[[https:// | + | |
- | * 2018-03-01: approved for publication as an RFC. (in MISSREF because of normative references that are not yet approved) | + | |
- | + | ||
- | ==== Evaluation Criteria | + | |
=== RPC Criteria === | === RPC Criteria === | ||
Line 59: | Line 63: | ||
* 8.2 weeks | * 8.2 weeks | ||
* Number of questions at start of AUTH48: 58 | * Number of questions at start of AUTH48: 58 | ||
- | [[https:// | ||
=== 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 in 2018 ==== | ||
- | === Feedback from Eric Rescorla (author, | + | === Feedback from Eric Rescorla (author, |
+ | < | ||
We experimented with using Github for the publication of TLS 1.3. | We experimented with using Github for the publication of TLS 1.3. | ||
The overall process was that Github was used primarily for feedback: | The overall process was that Github was used primarily for feedback: | ||
Line 152: | Line 157: | ||
-Ekr | -Ekr | ||
+ | </ | ||
=== Feedback from RFC Editor === | === Feedback from RFC Editor === | ||
Line 161: | Line 167: | ||
What Went Well: | 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. | + | |
+ | * It was easy for the RFC Editor to download a copy of the revised XML files. | ||
What Was Challenging: | What Was Challenging: | ||
- | * This was not a good choice of documents to do an experiment with; the length, criticality, | + | * 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. | ||
- | * While the discrete | + | |
- | * Being on the " | + | |
- | * The RPC editor' | + | |
- | * In a document that has a large number | + | |
- | * 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 | + | |
- | * " | ||
+ | Proposed Changes to the next stage of the GitHub Experiment (JSEP draft)\\ | ||
+ | [Full detail of the process is on this page] | ||
- | 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. | + | |