• https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons/
• Original repo: https://github.com/rjsparks/draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons
• Based on "Experiment 6" design
• Variance from the experiment design:
  • Markdown rather than RFCXML

See the readme

• Need to improve documentation for which type of edit to make in which format.
• Need to add PR checklist to internal procedures.
• More communication required to let authors know the status of the document once the content has been approved (e.g., when the document is being converted to RFCXML)

• Advantages: Clear and quick communication about the changes and author questions.
• Disadvantages: None from my perspective
• Was communication clear and easy to follow? Yes
• Were there any aspects of communication that were challenging? Only that the process became untransparent after auth48 was complete.
• Were the issues appropriately “sized”? Yes
• Were the issue labels helpful (e.g., rfced, question, editor-ready)? Yes
• Did you find the process more efficient than the current email-based process? Yes