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

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

On 3/2/2022 12:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Joel's concern is reasonable but I think the boundary between policy and
> operations will always be hard to fix precisely.
>
> That said, I slightly disagree with Lars. It's *exactly* because the
> policy requirements might differ between streams that the RSWG/RSAB
> structure is the right place to discuss this. To be specific, the
> lack of public debate about non-editorial changes at AUTH48 is of
> real concern in the IETF standards process, but might be considered
> a non-issue for the Independent Stream. And the desired settings might
> be different for the other three streams (including the new Editorial
> stream). That - public debate during AUTH48 - would be a policy issue.
> The details of which mailing lists and/or version management systems
> are used is operational. 

The request to make AUTH48  discussions public is rooted in the standard 
making requirements. RFCs coming out of the IETF streams are standard 
documents. The process must be fully transparent, if only to avoid 
appearances of last minute backroom dealing. The responsibility for 
ensuring the requiring transparency is squarely on the IESG and the IETF 
chair, not on the RSWG/RSAB or the RPC.

-- Christian Huitema