- From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:03:08 +0200
- To: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>, Interledger Mailing List - IETF <ledger@ietf.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+eFz_JNwi4tkjU4468aG-Lzu9z8hwbDJc=cf4nsAsPAeARNCA@mail.gmail.com>
As discussed before we have an issue whereby our Interledger RFCs are regularly changing and it's not possible for someone to refer to a static version of the document and be sure that the content won't substantially change the next time they visit the URL. I had initially proposed that we introduce semantic versioning on the RFCs but we decided against this on the basis that we should: a) Differentiate between specs that are incubating (similar to IETF Internet Drafts) and those that are mature (similar to IETF RFCs) b) Assign an RFC number to stable specs and a new number to revisions of that As such my proposal is that we adopt the following process for the Interledger RFCs going forward (this is something of a hybrid between the IETF and W3C processes and is in keeping with the process defined for us as a W3C Community Group): 1. There are two document types *Working Drafts* and *Candidate Specifications*. 2. Interledger RFCs are living documents that start as *Working Drafts*. 3. Working Drafts have an RFC number AND a draft number starting at 0 and increasing by 1 each time the content is changed. Attempting to merge changes to a Working Draft without incrementing the draft number should result in a build failure of the publishing process. 4. When a *Working Draft* is considered stable there is a call for review from the community to publish the document as a *Candidate Specification* 5. Assuming there is consensus to publish, the document becomes a *Candidate Specification* and no further substantive changes are allowed under the same RFC number. NOTES: - Candidate Specifications SHOULD also be published as W3C Community Group reports. - Candidate Specifications MAY be published as IETF Internet Drafts. - A different template should be used for Working Drafts and Candidate Specifications to help readers differentiate between them. - An explanation of this process should be available on the website and linked from the RFCs
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 10:03:56 UTC