IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Time to say "NO!!" to AUTH4200 (Re: AUTH48 checking the different formats (Re: Public archival of AUTH48 communications))

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 28 February 2022 23:17 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 02D843A1720; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:17:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Z8_YwgCVL8Xr; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7E513A16EC; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:17:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26EC73BA87; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:17:31 -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 C7F363BA87 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:17:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 BmIhXtEs8hnp for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:17:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F6393BA85 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:17:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p5089ad4f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.173.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4K6x9c46wbzDCbs; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 00:17:24 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jfw=sHe+kCcjTMfqYZFtXo27M0LJmwSwd69dTL6c=uWRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 00:17:24 +0100
Message-Id: <30A5489A-BD18-49CF-AB34-2E9B6E759B8C@tzi.org>
References: <CADaq8jeaDaSBczpzcDDPs-K4u+YP7V9C3dZ0Ntj5Y7sRK-HegA@mail.gmail.com> <28081.1646063116@localhost> <CADaq8jfw=sHe+kCcjTMfqYZFtXo27M0LJmwSwd69dTL6c=uWRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Time to say "NO!!" to AUTH4200 (Re: AUTH48 checking the different formats (Re: 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>
Cc: admin-discuss@ietf.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

> A full review should not be necessary. 

I wish that were true...

> The only review should be of the changes made by the RFC editor.   Perhaps the problem was that these were some excessive.   

The RFC editor often makes suggestions when text is unclear.
In many cases these are great, in some cases these are wrong, but easily corrected (or rejected).
The interesting cases are where the authors then need to find out what was actually meant.

>> A significant issue was that it had
>> spent a long time in the Q, and authors had swapped too much context out.
>> 
> Ouch!

Not just in the RFC editor queue (even though a MISSREF contributed a year in my example), also in the IESG processing, which can be very focused on narrow issues (and cause a lot of Brownian motion).
Have a look at the graphics and history in

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-resource-directory/

WGLC in 1H2019, IESG processing until early 2021, 1 year MISSREF…
So it’s been three years since we did the final heavy lifting.
Certainly swapped out by now.

(And that was a very successful development, pretty cutting-edge when we started it in 2011, with other SDOs then picking up on the way much of the innovation in their own subset derivatives.  It just took a lot of time to get the nooks and crannies right, with several author changes and job changes with the existing authors in that time.)

Grüße, Carsten

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email