[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Network                                                  M. Thomson, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                   Mozilla
Intended status: Best Current Practice                     A. Atlas, Ed.
Expires: August 22, 2017                                Juniper Networks
                                                       February 18, 2017


                        Using GitHub at the IETF
                      draft-thomson-github-bcp-00

Abstract

   This document describes best practices for working groups that use
   GitHub for their work.

Note to Readers

   Discussion of this document takes place on the GitHub@ietf mailing
   list (ietf-and-github@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=ietf-and-GitHub
   .

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 22, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents



Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Integrated Tools: GitLab and Git  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  GitHub: Community Outreach  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  IETF Administrative Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Naming and Ownership of Organizations . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Backup and Archiving of Working Group's Organization and
           Repositories  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Communicating IETF Policies in GitHub or GitLab . . . . .   5
     2.4.  Communicating GitHub or GitLab Use inside IETF  . . . . .   6
   3.  Deciding to Use GitHub  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  What to Use GitHub For  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Working Group Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Repositories  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Editors and Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.5.  Document Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Contribution Methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.1.1.  Issue Labelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.1.2.  Closing Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  Pull Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.1.  Discussion on Pull Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.2.2.  Merging Pull Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  Monitoring Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Advice to Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Internet-Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Assessing Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Continuous Integration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  GitHub Limitations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     12.3.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15






Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


1.  Introduction

   The IETF has an open and transparent process for developing
   standards; the use of GitHub, when used as part of this process as
   appropriate, can have several objectives.  For some technology areas,
   it can broaden the community that is reviewing and improving the
   specifications.  GitHub provides useful tools to speed up and manage
   a rapid iteration process for managing changes and tracking issues.
   Using tools that reduce the friction in rapidly improving documents
   and getting more relevant reviews can help improve the speed at which
   a Working Group completes its specifications.

   This document describes how the IETF uses GitHub through the
   development of Internet-Drafts.  This concentrates on the work that
   occurs within IETF working groups.  Recommendations for working
   groups and their chairs are made for integrating these tools with
   their processes.

   This document is meant as a companion to RFC 2418 [RFC2418].  It
   provides guidance to working group chairs and participants on how
   they can best use GitHub.  The small number of rules in this document
   are there to ensure common usage patterns between working groups and
   to avoid issues that have been encountered in the past.

1.1.  Integrated Tools: GitLab and Git

   Different version control systems are a critical component of
   software engineering and are quite useful also for document editing.
   The IETF datatracker can currently provide an subversion repository
   for each Working Group for its version control system, but git is
   also possible.

   Git is a distributed version control system and both GitLab and
   GitHub are based around git.  Each instance of a repository contains
   a number of revisions.  Each revision stores the complete state of a
   set of files.  Users are able to create new revisions in their copy
   of a repository and share revisions between copies of repositories.

   GitLab provides a simplified and integrated interface to not only
   git, but also provides basic user management, an issue tracker,
   associated wiki, project hosting, and more.  GitLab is a commercial
   integrated software product that can be hosted and run by different
   organizations; a community version is also available.








Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


1.2.  GitHub: Community Outreach

   GitHub is a service operated at https://GitHub.com/ .  GitHub
   provides a centralized store for git repositories.  GitHub is freely
   accessible on the open Internet, albeit currently only via IPv4.

   There are a large number of projects at GitHub and associated a very
   large community of contributors.  One way in which some IETF Working
   Groups have seen benefit is in the increased reviews and associated
   issues and improvements that come from broader participation by
   facilitating those in this community to participate.

   This document contains some content that is quite specific to GitHub.
   A working group that decides to adopt one of the several different
   alternative services can still benefit from the general guidance in
   this document.

1.3.  Notational Conventions

   The words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", and "MAY" are used in this
   document.  It's not shouting; when they are capitalized, they have
   the special meaning defined in [RFC2119].

2.  IETF Administrative Policies

   The following administrative rules provide the necessary oversight
   and transparency.  They apply whether GitHub or a publicly-available
   GitLab instance is used by the Working Group.  Working Groups that do
   not decide to use GitHub or a publicly-available GitLab instance are
   not impacted.

2.1.  Naming and Ownership of Organizations

   Each Working Group SHOULD create a new organization for the working
   group.  It SHOULD be named consistently so that it can be found.  For
   instance, the name could be ietf-<wgname> or ietf-<wgname>-wg.  A
   single organization SHOULD NOT be used for all IETF activity, or all
   activity within an area.  Large organizations create too much
   overhead for general management tasks, particularly when there is a
   need to maintain membership.

   Since an organization must have some owners, that should be done via
   a team that is given owner privileges.  This team MUST include the
   Area Directors and/or delegates of the Area Directors.  This team
   SHOULD include the Working Group Chairs.  A team with administrator
   access SHOULD be created and MAY include the Working Group Chairs and
   WG Secretary.  Administrator access is preferable, since this does




Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


   not also include the ability to push to all repositories and
   ownership does not grant any other significant privileges.

   When an Area Director changes, the outgoing Area Director MUST be
   removed from the organization's ownership team.  This can be done by
   the continuing AD, the outgoing AD or the WG Chairs.  The incoming
   Area Director and/or delegate MUST be added to the organization's
   ownership team.  When a WG Chair changes, the responsible Area
   Director or a delegate MUST remove the previous WG Chair from the
   organization's ownersip or administrative team and SHOULD add the new
   WG Chair to that team.

   When a Working Group is closed, the responsible Area Director is
   responsible for removing existing members from teams in the
   organization.  Repositories MUST be updated along to indicate that
   they are no longer under development.

2.2.  Backup and Archiving of Working Group's Organization and
      Repositories

   When an IETF Working Group is closed and even when the associated
   mailing lists are closed, the associated mail archives and
   datatracker information are backed up and accessible.  If a working
   group has used GitHub or GitLab, any repositories including issues
   and discussion SHOULD be backed up on IETF resources.  It is
   desirable for those to be accessible via the Working Group's data-
   tracker page.  For example, this might be via URLs listed in the More
   Info section on the WG Charter page.

   The IETF MAY decide to backup information associated with a Working
   Group's organization periodically.  This decision can be made
   differently per Working Group in consultation with the responsible
   Area Director.

2.3.  Communicating IETF Policies in GitHub or GitLab

   One important policy is the IETF IPR policy (see [RFC5378],
   [RFC3979], and [RFC4879]).  Part of this policy requires making
   contributors aware of the policy.

   The wording and details of how to do so are specified at
   https://trustee.ietf.org/license-for-open-source-repositories.html.
   The details are copied below, but the IETF web-site is authorative.

   The IETF Trust license file for open source repositories [3] MUST be
   included prominently in any document repository.

   Including this information in the CONTRIBUTING file is sufficient.



Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


   In addition to the above boilerplate text there is a benefit to
   including pointers to other working group materials, the IETF
   datatracker, specific drafts, or websites.  Adding such text is at
   the discretion of the working group chairs.

2.4.  Communicating GitHub or GitLab Use inside IETF

   Each Working Group MAY set its own policy as to whether and how it
   uses GitHub or GitLab.  It is important that occasional participants
   in the WG and others accustomed to IETF tools be able to determine
   this and easily find the policy and GitHub or GitLab organization.

   A simple example of how to do this is to include a link to the GitHub
   organization on the WG Charter page in the Datatracker under More
   Info.  Similarly, if there are multiple mailing list options, links
   to those mailing lists should be given.  An example of this is at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/charter/.

3.  Deciding to Use GitHub

   A Working Group Chairs are responsible for determining how to best
   accomplish the Charter in an open and transparent fashion.  The WG
   Chairs are responsible for determining if there is interest in using
   GitHub or GitLab and making a consensus call to determine if a the
   proposed policy and use is acceptable.  Chairs SHOULD involve area
   directors in this decision if they intend to use GitHub for anything
   more than managing of edits.

   While a document editor can still use GitHub independently for
   documents that they edit, even if the working group does not
   expressly choose to use GitHub, any such public respository MUST
   follow the guidelines in Section 2.3.  This recognizes that editors
   have traditionally chosen their own methods for managing the
   documents they edit but preserves the need for transparent
   contributions with awareness of IPR considerations.

3.1.  What to Use GitHub For

   Working group chairs have to decide what GitHub features the working
   group will rely upon.  Section 4 contains a more thorough discussion
   on the different features that can be used.

   Once a document is published in a repository on GitHub, many features
   like pull requests, issue tracking or the wiki can be individually
   disabled.  If specific features are not used by the working group in
   the development of the document, disabling those features avoids
   creating confusion in the wider community about what can be used.




Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


3.2.  Working Group Policies

   Working group chairs that decide to use GitHub MUST inform their
   working groups of their decision on the working group mailing list.
   An email detailing how the working group intends to use GitHub is
   sufficient, though it might be helpful to occasionally remind new
   contributors of these guidelines.

   Working group chairs are responsible for ensuring that any policy
   they adopt is enforced and maintained.

   Updating the README or CONTRIBUTING file in the repository with
   details of the process ensures that the process is recorded in a
   stable location other than the mailing list archive.  This also makes
   any working group policies available to casual contributors who might
   only interact with the GitHub repository.

   GitHub prominently links to the CONTRIBUTING on certain pages.  This
   file SHOULD be used in preference to the README for information that
   new contributors need.  A link to the CONTRIBUTING file from the
   README is advised.

3.3.  Repositories

   New repositories can be created within the working group organization
   at the discretion of the chairs.  Chairs could decide to only create
   new repositories for adopted working group items, or they might
   create repositories for individual documents on request.

   All repositories for working group documents MUST be public.
   Repositories for private documents MAY be kept private, but only
   where there is a specific reason for doing so.  For instance, a
   document that details a security vulnerability might be kept private
   prior to its initial publication as an Internet-Draft.  Once an
   Internet-Draft is published, repositories SHOULD be made public.

   The adoption status of any document MUST be clear from the contents
   of the repository.  This can be achieved by having the name of the
   document reflect status (that is, draft-ietf-<wg>-... indicates that
   the document was adopted), or through a prominent notice (such as in
   the README).

   Experience has shown that maintaining separate repositories for
   independent documents is most manageable.  This allows the work in
   that repository to be focused on a single item.

   Closely related documents, such as those that together address a
   single milestone, might be placed in a single repository.  This



Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


   allows editors to more easily manage changes and issues that affect
   multiple documents.

   Maintaining multiple documents in the same repository can add
   overheads that negatively affect individual documents.  For instance,
   issues might require additional markings to identify the document
   that they affect.  Also, because editors all have write access to the
   repository, managing the set of people with write access to a larger
   repository is more difficult.

3.4.  Editors and Contributors

   Working group chairs MUST give document editors write access to
   document repositories.  This can be done by creating teams with write
   access and allocating editors to those teams, or by making editors
   collaborators on the repository.

   Working group chairs MAY also grant other individuals write access
   for other reasons, such as maintaining supporting code or build
   configurations.  Working group chairs, as administrators or owners of
   the organization might also have write access to repositories.  Users
   other than document editors, including chairs, SHOULD NOT write to
   working group documents unless with prior coordination with document
   editors.

   Working groups MAY create a team for regular contributors that is
   only given read access to a repository.  This does not confer
   additional privileges on these contributors, it instead allows for
   issues and pull requests to be assigned to those people.  This can be
   used to manage the assignment of editorial or review tasks to
   individuals outside of the editor team.

3.5.  Document Formats

   In addition to the canonical XML format [RFC7991], document editors
   might choose to use a different input form for editing documents,
   such as markdown.  The choice of input format is left to document
   editors.

4.  Contribution Methods

   Contributions to documents come in many forms.  GitHub provides a
   range of options in addition to email.  Input on GitHub can take the
   form of new issues and pull requests, comments on issues and pull
   requests, and comments on commits.






Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


4.1.  Issues

   The GitHub issue tracker can be an effective way of managing the set
   of open issues on a document.  The record of issues - both open and
   closed - can be a useful way of recording decisions made by a working
   group.

   Issues can be given arbitrary labels, assigned to contributors, and
   assembled into milestones.  The issue tracker is integrated into the
   repository; an issue can be closed using a special marker in a commit
   message.

   Working group chairs MUST decide how the GitHub issue tracker are
   used.  Use of the issue tracker could be limited to recording the
   existence of issues, or it might be used as the venue for substantial
   technical discussion between contributors.

4.1.1.  Issue Labelling

   A system of labelling issues can be effective in managing issues.
   For instance, marking substantive issues separately from editorial
   can be helpful at guiding discussion.  Using labels can also be
   helpful in identifying issues for which consensus has been achieved,
   but that require editors to integrate the changes into a document.

   Labels can be used to identify particular categories of issues or to
   mark specific issues for discussion at an upcoming session.

   If labels are a core part of working group process, chairs MUST
   communicate any process to the working group.  This includes the
   semantics of labels, and who can apply and remove these labels.

4.1.2.  Closing Issues

   Editors have write access to repositories, which also allows them to
   close issues.  The user that opens an issue is also able to close the
   issue.  Chairs MUST determine who is permitted to close an issue and
   under what conditions.

4.2.  Pull Requests

   Pull requests are the GitHub feature that allow users to request
   changes to a repository.  A user does not need to have write access
   to a repository to create a pull request.  A user can create a
   "fork", or copy, of any public repository.  The user has write access
   to their own fork, allowing them to make local changes.  A pull
   request asks the owner of a repository to merge a specific set of
   changes from a fork (or any branch) into their copy.



Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


   Editors SHOULD make pull requests for all substantial changes rather
   than commiting directly to the "master" branch of the repository.

   Pull requests have many of the same properties as issues, including
   the ability to host discussion and bear labels.  Critically, using
   pull requests creates a record of actions taken.

   For significant changes, leaving a pull request open until discussion
   of the issue within the working group concludes allows the pull
   request to track the discussion and properly capture the outcome of
   discussions.

   Groups of editors could adopt a practice of having one editor create
   a pull request and another merge it.  This ensures that changes are
   reviewed by editors.  Editors are given discretion in how they manage
   changes.

4.2.1.  Discussion on Pull Requests

   In addition to the features that pull requests share with issues,
   users can also review the changes in a pull request.  This is a
   valuable feature, but it has some issues.

   Comments in a review other than a summary are attached to specific
   lines of the proposed change.  Such comments can be hard or
   impossible to find if changes are subsequently made to the pull
   request.  This is problematic for contributors who don't track
   discussion closely.

   For this reason, working group chairs SHOULD discourage the use of
   inline comments for substantial technical discussion of issues.

4.2.2.  Merging Pull Requests

   Working groups MUST determine who is permitted to merge pull
   requests.  Document editors SHOULD be permitted to merge pull
   requests at their discretion.  This requires that editors exercise
   some judgment.  Working group chairs MAY occasionally identify a pull
   request and request that editors withhold merging until working group
   consensus has been assessed.

   Note that the copy of a document that is maintained on GitHub does
   not need to be a perfect reflection of working group consensus at
   every point in time.  Document editors need some flexibility in how
   they manage a document.






Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


4.3.  Monitoring Activity

   Several working groups have created read-only mailing lists that
   subscribe to activity notifications on repositories.  The volume of
   information on these lists can be too high to monitor actively, but
   access to an archive of actions can be useful.

   A working group that uses GitHub SHOULD provide this facility.
   However, setting up this mailing list can be onerous and better
   solutions are still being sought.

5.  Advice to Editors

   Document editors are primarily responsible for maintaining documents.
   Taking on a few additional tasks can greatly improve the process for
   the working group.

   Using GitHub means that it is more likely that a contribution is made
   by users who aren't very familiar with the work.  If a duplicate
   issue is raised, point the user to the existing issue before closing
   the issue.  If a contributor seems rude in a comment, be courteous in
   response.

   Pull requests from new contributors can contain errors or omissions.
   Some contributors won't natively speak English, so changes might have
   grammatical errors.  If a change is generally sound, rather than
   rejecting the pull request or requesting changes, accept the change
   and then make any minor corrections yourself.

   Never close a pull request or issue without first understanding why
   it was made and then explaining why you aren't accepting it.  If you
   are uncertain, ask a chair for guidance.

   If a contributor makes a comment that raises what you believe to be a
   new issue, create an issue for them.  If the issue has an obvious
   solution, consider creating a pull request.  It doesn't matter what
   venue the issue was raised in, email, issue discussion, a pull
   request review, capturing issues quickly ensures that problems become
   visible and can be tracked.

   This takes a little more effort, but these simple steps can help
   encourage contributions, which will ultimately improve the quality of
   your document.








Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


6.  Internet-Drafts

   During the development of a document, individual revisions of a
   document can be built and formally submitted as an Internet-Draft.
   This creates a stable snapshot and makes the content of the in-
   progress document available to a wider audience.

   Editors SHOULD endeavour to create a new Internet-Draft submission
   two weeks prior to every session (see Section 7.1 of [RFC2418]).
   Participants in a session can't be expected to monitor changes to
   documents in real-time; an Internet-Draft ensures that there is a
   common, stable state that is known to all participants.

   Working group chairs MAY request the creation of an Internet-Draft at
   any time, in consultation with document editors.

7.  Assessing Consensus

   The work that occurs on GitHub could be part of the consensus
   process, but the ultimate decision on consensus regarding a document
   is made by the chairs [RFC2026].

   Monitoring activity on GitHub could require a greater time commitment
   than following a mailing list.  This is because there is an increased
   volume of activity to follow.  Participants who wish to limit this
   time commitment might follow GitHub activity selectively, either by
   following only specific issues or by occasionally reviewing the state
   of the document.  Chairs are reminded that assessing consensus based
   on GitHub content alone MUST NOT be assumed to reach all interested
   participants.

   A working group chair SHOULD consult the working group mailing list
   for any issue that is potentially contentious.  Relying on input
   provided through GitHub alone might result in gaining input from a
   narrower set of participants.  This includes important milestones
   like working group last-call, where review from the widest possible
   audience ensures a higher quality document.  Managing input from
   multiple sources in assessing consensus is similar to what is needed
   when balancing mailing list discussion versus in-person meeting
   discussion.

8.  Continuous Integration

   Various third-party services offer the ability to run tests and other
   computation when changes are made to a document.

   One common practice is to use these continuous integration services
   to build a text or HTML version of a document.  This is then



Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


   published to GitHub Pages, which allows users to view a version of
   the most recent revision of a document.

   Continuous integration can also validate pull requests and other
   changes for errors.  The most basic check is whether the source file
   can be transformed successful into a valid Internet-Draft.  For
   example, this might include checking that XML source is syntactically
   correct.

   For documents that use formal languages a part of specifications,
   such as schema or source code, a continuous integration system might
   also be used to validate any formal language that the document
   contains.  Tests for any source code that the document contains might
   be run, or examples might be checked for correctness.

9.  GitHub Limitations

   At the time of writing, GitHub.com is not reachable using IPv6.  This
   is an affront to all that the IETF stands for and a slap in the face
   to all the people who worked so hard to design and deploy the latest
   version of the Internet Protocol.  While we can collectively be
   ashamed and disappointed that this is the situation, that doesn't
   necessarily make the service any less useful.

10.  Security Considerations

   Continuity of operations is always a consideration when taking a
   dependency on an external service.  If GitHub were to fail in some
   way, anyone relying upon its services would be seriously affected.

   Consistent use of git reduces the exposure to a system failure
   because the primary repository is replicated in multiple locations.
   This extends to web pages that are hosted because the content of the
   page is saved in the main repository.  Maintaining a mirror of a
   repository that is hosted on GitHub is relatively simple and might be
   considered as a way to provide a backup for the primary repository.

   However, other information maintained on GitHub is more vulnerable to
   loss.  This includes issues and discussion on those issues,
   discussion and reviews of commits and pull requests, and any content
   hosted on the wiki.  Tools exist for extracting this information for
   backup.

   Malicious actions by compromised or malcontent editors, chairs and
   area directors are relevant in maintaining the integrity of the
   content that GitHub hosts.  Backups allow for recovery of content,
   and regular submissions as Internet-Drafts ensure that work is not
   lost completely.



Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


11.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3979]  Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
              Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, DOI 10.17487/RFC3979, March
              2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3979>.

   [RFC4879]  Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure
              Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4879, April 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4879>.

   [RFC5378]  Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
              Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
              September 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.

   [RFC7991]  Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
              RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.

12.3.  URIs

   [2] https://trustee.ietf.org/license-for-open-source-
       repositories.html






Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft              IETF GitHub Usage              February 2017


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   This work wouldn't have been possible without the hard work of those
   people who have trialed use of GitHub at the IETF.

Authors' Addresses

   Martin Thomson (editor)
   Mozilla

   Email: martin.thomson@gmail.com


   Alia Atlas (editor)
   Juniper Networks

   Email: akatlas@gmail.com


































Thomson & Atlas          Expires August 22, 2017               [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/