IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 03 March 2022 06:24 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 9FBDC3A138B for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 22:24:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 7XAxwcDgRcMg for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 22:24:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::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 00B1D3A137C for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 22:24:54 -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 4K8LYt04y1zDChT; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 07:24:49 +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: <YiBc6Mjj2++jxE0h@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 07:24:49 +0100
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, rfced-future@iab.org, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D5AC5684-506B-4214-9678-75B5C1FCBED2@tzi.org>
References: <CA+9kkMAg_xbTODu=UE288uxTVhL=+r18p5ywC6ZGaUvpyXO8bA@mail.gmail.com> <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> <11721.1646248947@localhost> <af3a9d13-7ec2-4e48-355a-a3870af06361@joelhalpern.com> <a52626d5-13aa-ab1a-cb13-282bd9bcf812@gmail.com> <269b5f09-4840-b038-085c-839e0a1c3c6b@huitema.net> <YiBc6Mjj2++jxE0h@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/iBDYEDYTq1QAxmU5B-uj091-LLg>
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: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 06:25:00 -0000

On 3. Mar 2022, at 07:15, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
> I am not aware of backroom dealings for non-editorial changes
> during AUTH48.

Of course not. That is the point of backroom dealings!

More seriously, there is a continuum here, and transparency could help keeping everyone subtly more honest.

But I’m really not so concerned about backroom deals, but simply with the lack of breadth of the small group finishing the AUTH48.
Watching some AUTH48 processes from the sidelines and not understanding WHY a vexing change was made can be frustrating.
These can be editorial mistakes that come back to haunt.
Lack of breadth can also lead to actual technical errors creeping in — there again is a continuum for these.
Often, the lack of breadth also leads to longer resolution times, where the actual expert on a question might just have chimed in at the right time.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email