Re: [admin-discuss] Public archival of AUTH48 communications

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2022-02-25, at 09:50, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> references to the RFC number may otherwise appear in
> advance of actual publication

Got the below chat message right after 9175 was published.
So these links already leak to google…
(No idea what or whether to do about this.)

(Of course, many IETFers rsync the RFC editor, so they have local copies anyway.)

> cc'ing the working group mailing lists for AUTH48 discussions

Of course, authors can use the protected nature of the AUTH48 exchanges to nudge the draft a little away from what the WG wanted.  The chairs and ADs are supposed to watch this, but they may not be aware of specific strong positions of (or deals made with) individuals on the WG list.  So CCing WGs would help keeping authors honest a bit more…
It also would draw in loud dissenters from the WG who will then create unceasing discussion threads, trying to win by attrition.

And WG lists are often indexed by search engines, so that might contribute to the above noted search engine effect.

Re trying to keep the RFC-to-be (draft RFC) secret:
It is less useful to follow the AUTH48 discussions when you can’t access the draft RFC.
(It is difficult enough to keep track of what changed in a new draft RFC; I’m actually rsyncing with timestamped backups to be able to follow the discussions.  These should be on a git repo...)

Grüße, Carsten