IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] [Rfced-future] RSWG & AUTH48 (was Re: [admin-discuss] Public archival of AUTH48 communications)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 03 March 2022 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 148543A110B; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:15:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.461
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6rgQSrr3iqjL; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:15:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D3293A10D5; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:15:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00BC2130013; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:15:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0271F12EF93 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:15:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sYoKIICjcXFp for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:15:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81C69130013 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:15:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7170938B37; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 14:24:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id aE-54HA04UBi; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 14:24:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94C238B9D; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 14:24:25 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1646335465; bh=+pkYGkAaolHipLE9pyO7XudeE3/TyYeyW6Ve6rs+kXA=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Fv7e2N4EMhWHQMZHBXTx0j2RHnHpzS29k2LE51CuYmd3czJHLJLe4fxqHPNHgusnQ LsrSH70jIsMcVNfXRVlm94bPpq5/oHFqc0HORulbMUVeF/o8n8pi5tIMrXo14b+/1s 7jxkFOGzSnrdGu44bZG4thUDZvVTBB6qG+VFZqZWkOtn+k9TZnuMC0S/RjWXfomrj1 6QaOm5GZAj4+Dif/x1WXnMHPc0iQSAS2APfD/cxSXQ3fyA1QzxAFnH7ifWshniCIYq APlPqAL4bCbeZNprG1QW+6/5t6GJEXSQ0fW1u42cDvYviqTTqC9ps5wecVuYlCTtfb ss0YAw5L9t0KA==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D756476; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 14:15:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, rfced-future@iab.org, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <D5AC5684-506B-4214-9678-75B5C1FCBED2@tzi.org>
References: <CA+9kkMAg_xbTODu=UE288uxTVhL=+r18p5ywC6ZGaUvpyXO8bA@mail.gmail.com> <7C442BD6-F634-4129-9764-1BE29382D629@att.com> <8129A65C40CD88E0B5C94AA8@PSB> <7BC3F808-434B-48CF-B96B-0CF7D8B9F3A7@tzi.org> <EEF0F457622EDF74E090BC66@PSB> <BEB26FE0-CC24-4EC2-B7E5-6556A2425A24@eggert.org> <11721.1646248947@localhost> <af3a9d13-7ec2-4e48-355a-a3870af06361@joelhalpern.com> <a52626d5-13aa-ab1a-cb13-282bd9bcf812@gmail.com> <269b5f09-4840-b038-085c-839e0a1c3c6b@huitema.net> <YiBc6Mjj2++jxE0h@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <D5AC5684-506B-4214-9678-75B5C1FCBED2@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 14:15:21 -0500
Message-ID: <30761.1646334921@localhost>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [Rfced-future] RSWG & AUTH48 (was Re: [admin-discuss] Public archival of AUTH48 communications)
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6553093869450094311=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    > On 3. Mar 2022, at 07:15, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
    >>
    >> I am not aware of backroom dealings for non-editorial changes
    >> during AUTH48.

    > Of course not. That is the point of backroom dealings!

at least, if you are any good at them.

    > More seriously, there is a continuum here, and transparency could help
    > keeping everyone subtly more honest.

I would say it differently.

People not involved any a specific AUTH48 can't be sure what horse trading
may have occurred during the editing, or who initiated it.
ADs might be able to say that they have never seen any backroom dealings, and
specific authors may agree for specific documents, but suspicious could still remain.

Having a public audit trail just makes everyone feel happy.

    > But I’m really not so concerned about backroom deals, but simply with
    > the lack of breadth of the small group finishing the AUTH48.

Agreed.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.40.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status