Re: [rfc-i] AUTH48 workflow [was [Rfced-future] Welcome to the RFC Editor Future Development Program]

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 02 April 2020 04:15 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 3C1FD3A0876; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 poYPTOmnu5Ew; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77AD93A0801; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206D7F40713; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
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 9EA97F40713 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 QGipv5sOYkKM for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x242.google.com (mail-lj1-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::242]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39550F4070F for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x242.google.com with SMTP id f20so1807254ljm.0 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 21:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZX0xASI/5zQpSeCLsYbbrFg3pvTEnZeqqy0ROHESUkw=; b=ufpK75Xy93cftQbHb7INTEFQ9nahdNhCFImq7/46PdOy71otgGzai3gTVe1bkEEdte w/y77ehHoKpkAT8A/Wy0Pq7d5UBOcJy0OdpD4qslr33qiRe3ZVrzbiL3euDbsz8PwWPd mPkm2GhHsP3aDScwWsZ/17cyAKzZ7jx5jj2tE3ZliK2MNO/JKeNZyQ3RJHzRGBTMMHfu vJfj1l8Wo+ID30m+0p609ENkzqAPNPT7XK5uNZq8NkY//XFJ0Y+DnxCziX09oecRbj4N mlakfHP1bJ0cUMtLpn5cLhyBtiQX8WZ7lXpiLWGRDo2Tmk0T3QUlRIpt5AC2PMuNkNsZ NQUw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZX0xASI/5zQpSeCLsYbbrFg3pvTEnZeqqy0ROHESUkw=; b=DDrKPKIN7iJj1lTEhDpt4OBzLbrBsm6mqcchW5bhMY+aajvfWuZJMJOTPX6QGR1fgM +NmtRO4L3MsCDzEnFgGEGw8u0wJl1Y2n7rcPUQGQtnx82qEGTAsfu8CSadsJfCk0jtBB 8Oi9//EKVZPTFPe1PGDM6Vdk1o5ceHA97LWu1XX721iRyuxjaXEzpirITLbkm5PvUkSK tBq+YiLZYQTVU+9WvuXaubuT44cIupmYpKxjmT+pp+LJegpH3/6M0vCIzgwV9LDYvvZc 4M/GfhGI2HsDOfYakFoLf3ZgYjRwD31g9bPKPo732aUWK2PCoe3ZL9MZjJU7aDnRwaAX PiWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubUfIIwQ47yLdZzher9ql5IGZ2/ULvHBGt2sLgbWodl3L7jnOc1 ZhosC7OdTfnJZYZKImHEUotTVLAX5FDWDoaDNk+7QQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJWk3yWjvZKZ4Q3aX4YMFMlfVdQBfIS7j1rn6pdfjaqebCIlX3E35ph4BQHm0dXZdYOJqoz3K1OSUjjkTCfCEM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9497:: with SMTP id c23mr775056ljh.286.1585800930966; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 21:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <97B63B78-0D49-4007-B8A2-101FB7849C0F@cisco.com> <e1876470-c6aa-da6a-5282-5fe2a4d8d893@cs.tcd.ie> <612878B544D3F4BD620D9650@PSB> <c8b96911-e57f-e324-6c58-042a4ca0a3f2@cs.tcd.ie> <0a9001d60887$02d355e0$087a01a0$@acm.org> <b4b6d85a-3f2e-fa13-0dab-36daf66dc67d@nthpermutation.com> <0ac801d6089c$c36031b0$4a209510$@acm.org> <c9be4f85-00a6-a8ad-7c49-9f46930fe425@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c9be4f85-00a6-a8ad-7c49-9f46930fe425@gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:14:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPoRm1dqW-QUR8q9BycATdFdivcwPAJVHDvkA=N98s2Bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] AUTH48 workflow [was [Rfced-future] Welcome to the RFC Editor Future Development Program]
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5997801797810353872=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:32 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02-Apr-20 16:14, Larry Masinter wrote:
> > I think what I'm calling the "AUTH48" problem was greatly exacerbated by
> the format switch, making the normal publishing process of reviewing
> "galley proofs" to be too onerous for those familiar with the material vs.
> the RFC Editor who has enough to worry about without knowing what might or
> might not be significant elements of typography, spacing, emphasis in
> formats that the author didn't even review (text, html, pdf)
> >
> > IMHO, the "real problem" from a publishing workflow point of view  is
> that there is a workflow task that is not explicitly assigned, namely to
> validate that the to-be-published RFC, in all its published formats,
> reflects the intent of the author and the body that approved it.
>
> That's *exactly* the purpose of AUTH48, and that's why AUTH48 sometimes
> lasts much longer than 48 hours. In my experience, ADs and WG chairs are
> often involved in discussion of whether certain changes are editorial or
> substantive.
>
> I have no experience of AUTH48 for the v3 format, but I find reviewing v3
> HTML documents much easier than txt. (For only reviewing diffs, txt remains
> better. But at AUTH48 one is explcitly asked to review the whole document.)
>
> In any case, I am sure this is off topic for the rfced-future list, so I
> switched lists.
>

FWIW, I usually find it necessary to review both the diffs and the whole
document: the diffs to highlight what changes have been made in processing
and the whole document as a final sanity check. Indeed, I would find it
helpful to review multiple stages of diff that reflected different types of
transformation, such as (a) rfc styling (b) copy-edit, etc.

-Ekr


>     Brian
> >
> > It's easy to imagine the results would be a lot of unmet expectation and
> finger pointing, and arguments about what the "real problem" was.
> > --
> > https://LarryMasinter.net
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest