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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 02 March 2022 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C694C3A0E39 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 15:30:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DQROFPQw6ELq for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 15:30:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AC033A0E18 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 15:30:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p5089ad4f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.173.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4K89Mz0DYPzDCfn; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 00:30:39 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <ba245a33-e4cb-391b-f796-940e29ea3807@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 00:30:38 +0100
Cc: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, rfced-future@iab.org, "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <35B1263C-2B3B-4966-933E-194306F0F4C1@tzi.org>
References: <164574145917.13799.12710132950530774405@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+9kkMC+vkyMPbt755Bu0cZHfmY-Pz6CdU1-J+8sBa8cPkA0dg@mail.gmail.c om> <CABcZeBMeRFOU+az=b8QJmD+-4GHivwZenMHEXsrbnamuoEmwEA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAg_xbTODu=UE288uxTVhL=+r18p5ywC6ZGaUvpyXO8bA@mail.gmail.c om> <7C442BD6-F634-4129-9764-1BE29382D629@att.com> <8129A65C40CD88E0B5C94AA8@PSB> <7BC3F808-434B-48CF-B96B-0CF7D8B9F3A7@tzi.org> <EEF0F457622EDF74E090BC66@PSB> <BEB26FE0-CC24-4EC2-B7E5-6556A2425A24@eggert.org> <ba245a33-e4cb-391b-f796-940e29ea3807@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/_lhMxquS8tT4Ka3aKxQOw1BcBYs>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] [rfc-i] RSWG & AUTH48 (was Re: [admin-discuss] Public archival of AUTH48 communications)
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2022 23:30:46 -0000

On 3. Mar 2022, at 00:23, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
> nit-picking
> RPC procedures

… indeed needs to be avoided.

However, a continuous improvement process lives off stakeholder input, and I hope rfc-interest will stay a lively forum where we make our observations know.
The separation of the lists will ensure we don’t mistake these observations with a call for action for new RS** procedures.

> But I don't think RSWG nor IETF
> participants need try design the details for how to make
> auth48 discussion public.

No.  There has been a good suggestion by the IESG, and RPC can now take it from there.

Grüße, Carsten