- From: Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:54:39 +0000
- To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>, Interledger Mailing List - IETF <ledger@ietf.org>
- Message-ID: <CAONA2jUcX4a70OZNd_KYvr-YmbHY-BpamryjnQ=yyAX-VTqEQg@mail.gmail.com>
Just to clarify: - Would working drafts and candidate specifications live in different places? Which one would github.com/interledger/rfcs hold? - If I have a new Interledger-related idea, would I just submit a PR to the RFCs repo and claim the next available number? Or should I submit a PR with no number and have a maintainer assign the number (got that idea from Yarnjs <https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs#what-the-process-is>). - Is "version 1" of ILQP, for example, always going to "live" in the same numbered RFC? Would "version 2" then be a different RFC number and minor updates to the original one just increment the draft number? - Trickier question: what defines "consensus to publish"? Who are the stakeholders that need to agree? On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:03 PM Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote: > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Ledger mailing list > Ledger@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ledger > -- Evan Schwartz Software Engineer Managing Director of Ripple Luxembourg <http:> <http:>
Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 13:55:23 UTC