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

Eric Rescorla <> Thu, 02 April 2020 04:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1FD3A0876; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id poYPTOmnu5Ew; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77AD93A0801; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206D7F40713; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA97F40713 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QGipv5sOYkKM for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::242]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39550F4070F for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f20so1807254ljm.0 for <>; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 21:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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: <> <> <612878B544D3F4BD620D9650@PSB> <> <0a9001d60887$02d355e0$087a01a0$> <> <0ac801d6089c$c36031b0$4a209510$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:14:54 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] AUTH48 workflow [was [Rfced-future] Welcome to the RFC Editor Future Development Program]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Cc: RFC Interest <>, Larry Masinter <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5997801797810353872=="
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:32 PM Brian E Carpenter <> 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.


>     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.
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest mailing list