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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 5:26 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>

Agreed. I don't actually have strong feelings about any of this and would
be fine if we struck this text. I'm just trying to review it from the
perspective
of "does this say what we want" and "can it be executed"?



> 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.
>

Agreed.

-Ekr


>
>     Brian
>