Re: AUTH48 and "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards"

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Hi SM,

On Jun 5, 2025, at 4:39 PM, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:

There was a question some time back to make the
AUTH48 publicly accessible and a decision was
taken on that in or around February 2022.  The
email in which the script was mentioned is
archived at
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/Yw3JluJcYFE_jc6TDId0fur13JE/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F58uTvLHM7gbGyDcYn8Tf7JJIoqD6tc_AJU8o4iaM5aUiW5v9Kb6BexDFk_40MRKrSf0pTRTosLjFs8$

For that matter, I don't know what "the script"
you refer to might be. (Given the context of our
discussion, the most obvious reading of "the
script" is that you imagine there's some
automation, a  la idnits, that's supposed to do this work.)

Yes.

Thanks for the additional context. With that correction in mind, I think my previous conclusion stands: even though the RFCEd is evidently using a script (probably simple keyword matching but I’m only guessing) it seems like everyone who’s weighed in, you included,

I agree that it is a matter of context (re. judgement calls).

believes that a script can't be authoritative, and that a human in the loop is required.

My experience has been that this part of the process is both helpful and not onerous, so I’m still on team “let’s not ‘fix’ it”.

Regards,

—John