On Jan 5, 2026, at 22:36, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06.01.2026 03:35, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> Greetings. Before Alexis and I start our review, I have a significant >> procedural question. In >> <https://github.com/rfc-editor/AUTH48-rfc9920/pull/1>, Eliot (I assume >> wearing his shepherd hat) proposes a significant policy change be added to >> the document during AUTH48 without asking the RSWG. He does not give >> specific text, just a "very loose strawman". > Correction: I asked authors for your thoughts before bringing the matter back > to the RSAB. As shepherd, the only thing I can do is do that. It is then > for the RSAB to decide whether the document should be held/returned to the > RSWG.
As shepherd, you get to do what you want, but I fundamentally disagree that this "needs" to be brought to the RSAB. It is a last-minute policy change that could have been considered by the RSWG, but was not. It puts restrictions on the RSWG that have not ever been shown to be needed, and it confuses Editorial stream processing with IETF stream processing. As you can tell, I (as an individual in the RSWG) don't like it. Having said that, if you as shepherd take it to the RSAB, and they think that we should stop processing the draft until it is resolved in the RSWG, I'll dutifully follow along (and list my misgivings about the proposed change on the RSWG). Until then, I will continue to process the AUTH48 stuff knowing that there might later be this change. --Paul Hoffman -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
