IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Fri, 04 March 2022 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@lear.ch>
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 111EE3A0F64 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:26:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=lear.ch
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 Q_goNrIeRERq for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:26:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C9AA3A0F52 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:26:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.227] (77-58-144-232.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.58.144.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 224KQ0bp226898 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 4 Mar 2022 21:26:01 +0100
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1646425561; bh=zQZs8eInh0VCYjt1B6p50SV3EfUiup3x5oO+vyZW6x4=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=olLzhwfjTuGQlO7odlpTnMrmR/lghDIaw0omBUaLhbqpBUy9zABR95qDNn4AP35Y+ JXZx8OvDey1FiMCi3pMDehK1iwduEHUhdVGH6km1oItQ//uIUuLDNyDzdKIO/VfI35 wwrLjcR/466z17WrvSfjUBtQOjjiVfiJoZhKbMk0=
Message-ID: <f18f0f8e-cfae-145d-0016-b23c4ddf81df@lear.ch>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 21:25:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.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> <D5AC5684-506B-4214-9678-75B5C1FCBED2@tzi.org> <30761.1646334921@localhost> <D1908D64BC74C4F3C9444271@PSB> <F7300C99-E183-4CB3-AECC-EDCC8028EC03@eggert.org> <D4925436BB27594C0DB4B09D@PSB> <5b2322fd-b4b9-dd88-b82f-72f486714009@huitema.net>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
In-Reply-To: <5b2322fd-b4b9-dd88-b82f-72f486714009@huitema.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------ZW8q7IeW7Z3MRRwAO0X0YVpg"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/osVNYc7Z9HRag_HIPMETNJnnod4>
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: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 20:26:31 -0000

Christian,

On 04.03.22 21:02, Christian Huitema wrote:
> 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.

Given the dearth of incidents when output of a working group so 
surprised members when it became an RFC, I'd argue that'd be a bad trade 
off against the readability that the RPC helps us gain.  And yes, there 
was ONE incident in the early 1990s.  We've discussed it before.  In 
fact we discussed it then.  That makes me wonder what all the fuss is about.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email