+1 on RFC. It's good to have a few pages of RFC to get a quick look of an idea. It doesn't have to be a full standard like some IETF RFCs.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM Taher Koitawala <[email protected]> wrote: > Agree Vinoth +1 > > Regards, > Taher Koitawala > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 5:49 PM Bhavani Sudha <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > +1 on RFC. Makes sense to me. > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While HIP process > > > covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to just write > up > > > some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_display_HUDI_Hudi-2Bfor-2BContinuous-2BDeep-2BAnalytics&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=BtmOFE9z1baBO8A7gX7xN4a_-bJ8W97q2GBCg2HecaA&e= > > > ) > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Request-5Ffor-5FComments&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=939DidQWDsxU0ERbE2lGD3Jjj5iwqKc8d4_TyoPWaJ8&e= > RFCs are used for > > > defining, reasoning about Internet standards. > > > > > > I would like to propose that > > > - we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional use-case of > > > covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For e.g, Flink > > > support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a document > to > > > fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on mailing > > list). > > > - While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For Comments) > > has > > > a broader scope, which I like. :) > > > > > >
