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

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

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.

-- Christian Huitema