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

I have rather the opposite concern about this conversation.  We seem to 
be moving in a direction where the RSWG is responsible for managing all 
aspects of the RPC operation.  Tactical as well as strategic.  That does 
not match what I thought we agreed.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/2/2022 2:22 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote:
>      > I thought about this a bit, and it's not immediately obvious to me that
>      > procedures for AUTH48 handling are under the purview of the RSWG.
> 
> I don't mind if AUTH48 options are under the purview of the RSWG.
> That might require that we ask the RSWG to amend itself, and I'm okay with that.
> 
>      > could see an argument being made that they are under the purview of the
>      > individual streams. There are already minor differences between the
>      > streams, for example, the IRSG is in the loop for AUTH48 exchanges or
>      > the IRTF stream, but the IESG is not for the IETF stream.
> 
> It seems that there are a few boolean options that different streams might
> want to turn on off, and at the least, we should say what they are.
> In the end, it might be that things are the way they are because the
> different stream managers were ignorant of the options.
> 
>      > It's true that so far, all streams have used - more or less, see above
>      > - the same process for handling AUTH48 processing. If that is intended
>      > to be one of the invariants of the RFC series, I agree that any changes
>      > would be under the purview of the RSWG, and any changes would then also
>      > apply to all streams.
> 
> I would prefer that AUTH48 process didn't varry much, or at all.
> 
>      > But I could also see a future where one stream would want to revise how
>      > AUTH48 should be handled for their documents. If this is something we
>      > would like to allow - and personally (with no hats) I think that could
>      > be attractive - then I don't see how this could be under the purview of
>      > the RSWG, given that they are setting policies for the series (but not
>      > the individual streams).
> 
> I guess the only reason I think that we should allow variances is so that
> smaller groups can try something new, innovate, and then report their
> results.   It otherwise seems like change for change's sake to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest