With the move to XML and renderings of a new RFC in different formats, who is responsible for reviewing the different renderings for unintended changes in meaning? If it's the authors, I'd hope that a change in AUTH48 might offer some way to spread the burden. FWIW -- https://LarryMasinter.net https://interlisp.org > -----Original Message----- > From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of > HANSEN, TONY L > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 8:37 AM > To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>; Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: IESG <iesg@xxxxxxxx>; IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>; > Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@xxxxxxxx>; admin-discuss@xxxxxxxx; RFC > Interest <rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; irtf-announce@xxxxxxxx; IETF > <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Public archival of AUTH48 communications > > Perhaps there should be an auth48 mailing list per working group? It would be > used for all auth48 interactions associated with the docs for that WG. When a > doc from a WG enters auth48, a note would be sent to the WG indicating the > location of that working group mailing list. Non-WG auth48 interactions could > use a single non-WG mailing list. > > I think this would satisfy both Ted's and Ekr's preferences. (Mine too. :) ) > > Advantages: > > *) Separates the auth48 traffic away from the working group. > *) Separates the auth48 traffic for one WG from all other auth48 traffic. > *) Reduces the number of mailing lists that need to be managed. > *) The mailing list could be moderated to only allow the auth48 authors (and > RPC) to post to it, and only while their documents are in that state. > *) Allows someone who wants to follow the auth48 traffic for that WG to do > so. > *) Doesn't force someone (who is interested in following the auth48 traffic for > a given set of WGs) from seeing the back and forth for ALL WGs. > > I think the last two bullets are particularly important. > > Tony > > On 2/25/2022, 10:15 AM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Ted Hardie" <rfc-interest- > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 2:19 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > While I think transparency is good, I think sending them through the WG > list would be a mistake. > > > > In many cases there is a tremendous amount of back and forth about > small details that I would prefer not to be bothered with for every WG list I > am on. > > > > I don't object to a separate list that WG members could subscribe to. > > > > -Ekr > > > This would work for me, and I think it is a nice parallel to the way > the GH comment streams are set up in the working groups that use them. > There is a separate list you can subscribe to, and it's your choice as > to whether to intermingle that in your folders with the main WG list. > I personally keep them nested under the main list, and I'd do the same > here, but I like the flexibility this proposal offers. > > > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list > rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
