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

On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 12:02 PM Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
wrote:

> On 3/4/2022 10:46 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> This is not a concern for the IESG. We have seen no evidence
> that the AUTH48 step is somehow systemically broken. (It does
> often take longer than 48 hours - but that has been the case
> for decades.)
>
> I did not say "systematically broken" or anything like it.  Over
> the years, I've seen several cases in which questions about
> clarity or ambiguity have come up during AUTH48 where the
> possible solutions could have substantive technical
> implications.  The decisions that have been made at that stage
> have almost always been made based on beliefs about what the WG
> intended or what the WG would say if asked.  AFAICT, those
> decisions have almost always been made correctly made -- I don't
> believe that I have ever (at least in the last couple of
> decades) heard of participants in a WG complaining that a
> document, as published, was not what they intended. However, I
> still think it is reasonable to be anxious about that way of
> making such decisions (although, frankly, not very anxious).
>
> The process would be most transparent if the published version was exactly
> the version approved by the IESG. Or "almost exactly", if the changes were
> entirely predictable, such as removing text marked as "please remove before
> publication". But in my mind, rewriting paragraphs does not belong there.
>
Without taking a position on transparency and appropriateness, I would say
that most drafts I am involved with have had some of this in the AUTH48
stage, and semantic changes are pretty common (though cleared with the AD
and usually the WG).

-Ekr

-- Christian Huitema
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>