Hi, On 11/08/2020 20:33, Christopher Patton wrote: > This is probably my fault, I apologize.
No need! It looks like a lot of the editorial/lint stuff wouldn't need to be brought to the list but that one looked like it might. And since Chris says they're gonna mail the list anyway, that'll be fine then. The volume is still a bit of a concern though tbh. Between this and the draft formerly known as httpssvc there's an awful lot of hopefully non-substantive changes happening offlist that affect ESNI and more. I do worry about that "hopefully." On 11/08/2020 20:37, Eric Rescorla wrote: > I note that draft-ietf-git-github explicitly permits discussion on the > issues, Well, sure. I know that some people like that, and it does have benefits. But also downsides that I'm sure will be discussed when/if that draft goes to IETF LC. > with confirmation on-list: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-git-using-github-06#section-5.3 > > We have found this to be quite efficient in QUIC. While the conventions in > TLS predate the approval of this document, I think this would be good to > adopt here > > As far as browser tabs, GitHub allows you to watch the repository and be > notified by email of any discussion. You can also reply by email I do. The mails often have URLs and no substantive body so it's often not possible to actually take part in a real discussion that way. And the visibility of the overall context is very different. In the end github issues and list discussion are just different, both with pros and cons. And the latter, as of now, is how we formally do business. But that's for another place and time - if the chairs are doing the extra work of ensuring github-based discussions do get confirmed on the list in a timely fashion then we'll be ok. Cheers, S.
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
