Draft: draft-ietf-git-using-github

Commentary: From  's AD review 
 Note that the URL fixes here are ineffective . The source is : The resulting XML is : The HTML shows a nice clickable link . xml2rfc produces text output of " ( ) " . Perhaps this is a case where a small tweak to xml2rfc is in order . 
 Nice relaxation of the text .
Paragraph (version A):
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
[1].
Paragraph (version A):
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/ietf-gitwg/using-github [2].
Paragraph (version A):
The IETF has an open and transparent process for developing
standards.  The use of GitHub [3] or similar tools, when used as part
of this process, can have several objectives.  GitHub provides tools
that can be helpful in editing documents.  Use of this service has
been found to reduce the time that Working Groups need to produce
documents and to improve the quality of the final result.
Paragraph (version B):
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>.
Paragraph (version B):
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
<https://github.com/ietf-gitwg/using-github>.
Paragraph (version B):
The IETF has an open and transparent process for developing
standards.  The use of GitHub [1] or similar tools, when used as part
of this process, can have several objectives.  GitHub provides tools
that can be helpful in editing documents.  Use of this service has
been found to reduce the time that Working Groups need to produce
documents and to improve the quality of the final result.
Paragraph (version A):
Git [4] is a distributed version control system that can operate
without a central service.  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.
Paragraph (version B):
Git [2] is a distributed version control system that can operate
without a central service.  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.
Paragraph (version A):
GitHub is a service operated at https://github.com/ [5].  GitHub
provides centralized storage for git repositories.  GitHub is freely
accessible on the open Internet.
Paragraph (version B):
GitHub is a service operated at <https://github.com/>.  GitHub
provides centralized storage for git repositories.  GitHub is freely
accessible on the open Internet.
Paragraph (version A):
Git is not the only version control system available, nor is GitHub
the only possible choice for hosting.  There are other services that
host revision control repositories and provide similar additional
features to GitHub.  For instance, BitBucket [6] and GitLab [7]
provide similar feature sets.  In addition to a hosted service,
software for custom installations exists.
Paragraph (version B):
Git is not the only version control system available, nor is GitHub
the only possible choice for hosting.  There are other services that
host revision control repositories and provide similar additional
features to GitHub.  For instance, BitBucket [3] and GitLab [4]
provide similar feature sets.  In addition to a hosted service,
software for custom installations exists.
Paragraph (version A):
In addition to Working Group policies, notices on repositories MUST
include citations for the IETF Note Well [8].
Paragraph (version B):
In addition to Working Group policies, notices on repositories MUST
include citations for the IETF Note Well [5].
Paragraph (version A):
All repositories for Working Group documents within the Working Group
organization 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.
Paragraph (version B):
Maintaining private repositories for Working Group products is not
recommended without specific cause.  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 for Working Group documents MUST be made
public.
Paragraph (version A):
An alternative is to rely on periodic email summaries of activity,
such as those produced by a notification tool like github-notify-ml
[9].  This tool has been used effectively in several Working Groups,
though it requires server infrastructure.
Paragraph (version B):
An alternative is to rely on periodic email summaries of activity,
such as those produced by a notification tool like github-notify-ml
[6].  This tool has been used effectively in several Working Groups,
though it requires server infrastructure.