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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 02/03/2022 15:41, Lars Eggert 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 think the procedures for auth48 should be driven by the
RPC, as IIUC has been the case. If there's need for some
policy change related to that then I'd say yes the RSWG is
the right body for that. But I'd hope that nit-picking
RPC procedures would be avoided by the RSWG (likely a job
for the chairs to monitor that). OTOH, this thread seems
to indicate that the people who're interested in the RWSG
won't be able to resist nit-picking (but sure what's new,
we do that kind of thing all the time;-)

To give an example: whether to make auth48 discussions
public seems like a fine topic for the RWSG. Exactly how
that might be done seems best left to the RPC and I'm
sure they'll co-ordinate on that with the IESG, IRSG and
ISE, and that people will yell as needed if that all goes
wrong (it won't). But I don't think RSWG nor IETF
participants need try design the details for how to make
auth48 discussion public.

Cheers,
S.