[Rfced-future] Issue 147 [WGLC Review of the draft]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 04-Jan-22 13:43, Eric Rescorla wrote:

On one point only:

> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 4:39 PM Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     On 1/3/22 5:19 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:

...
>      > Issue 147: This requires the RPC to keep certain records,
>      > e.g., of dialogue with document authors. Does that formally
>      > happen now, or is it just in people's e-mail folders?
>      > Do these records need to be public?
>      > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147 <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147>
>      > <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147 <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147>>
> 
>     It's not clear to me whether all record-keeping needs to be public. It
>     might be acceptable that records are kept and available on request if
>     needed (e.g., in case of an appeal).
> 
> 
> I think that would be OK. But do they keep records at all?


I can't answer that. But I suspect that there might, rarely, be matters
that would be considered private, especially for the Independent Stream
if publishing a proprietary spec. So any policy for making the records
public would need to allow privacy exceptions.

However, I just glanced over the messages in my archive about AUTH48,
and I can't see any case that seems private. Even in a couple of cases
where advice was sought from the (former) RSAG, I don't see anything
sensitive.

One small point: if we add text stating that future records will be
public, or available on request, we'd better state that this is
not automatically retroactive for previous records.

    Brian