Subject: [Rfced-future] in which stream do we publish this document?

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:53:21 -0600

Apparently there is a non-trivial amount of work involved with setting 
up a new stream, such as updates to:

* datatracker
* xml2rfc
* errata handling system
* email mapping for the stream manager
* info page display on the rfc-editor.org website

It's not clear to me how *much* work is involved and how that work fits 
in with existing roadmaps (this could be something that various 
contractors need to discuss with the LLC). However, it makes me wonder 
whether we should:

(a) publish this document in the Editorial Stream

or

(b) publish this document in the IAB Stream, which authorizes creation 
of the Editorial Stream (where future documents will be published, which 
could include a future version of this document)

Thoughts?

Peter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:05:46 +1300

> could include a future version of this document)

IMHO, (b), for two reasons:

1. (a) would delay publication, even if the changes needed are only a
small matter of programming.

2. (b) will act as a formal transfer of authority from the previous
regime (which is also why the small update to the RFC Charter is
needed at the same time).

I think the document can declare itself to *also* be the first document
in the Editorial Stream. (It's another small matter of programming to
allow two categories in the metadata.)

   Brian

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 18:30:51 -0500

> needed at the same time).

I had the exact two thoughts when I read Peter's mail, and so agree both 
with the conclusion and the rationale.

> allow two categories in the metadata.)

I'm ambivalent on this point, but I don't immediately see any harm, at 
least to the extent that it doesn't delay publication.

/a

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 17:04:43 +1000

+1, this seems like a good approach.

> On 28 Sep 2021, at 9:30 am, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I had the exact two thoughts when I read Peter's mail, and so agree both with the conclusion and the rationale.
> 
> 
> I'm ambivalent on this point, but I don't immediately see any harm, at least to the extent that it doesn't delay publication.
> 
> /a
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:26:28 +0200

Hi Brian,

> needed at the same time).

Ok.

> allow two categories in the metadata.)

I'm a little nervous about what downstream will break if the doc is in 
two streams.  I have no problem with the document SAYING that 
normatively and textually (or not).  I just don't want us to break 
tooling over this sort of one-off.

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 08:43:02 +1300

> tooling over this sort of one-off.

Indeed. I would expect it to show up in the system marked as "IAB stream",
and defer any 2nd marking as "Editorial stream" unless and until the
tooling allows it.

     Brian

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 16:18:25 -0600

> and defer any 2nd marking as "Editorial stream" unless and until the

Alternatively, this document could be published in the IAB Stream and,
if desired, republished later on in the Editorial Stream through the
processes defined herein (likely with some tweaks along the way).

Peter

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 09:15:26 +1000

> processes defined herein (likely with some tweaks along the way).

This is a pragmatic approach.  Let the IAB have the first go, then we can put the next revision on the new stream.  That might be straight away, or just when there are changes that are worth making.