Hi Paul, Thank you for the helpful input!
Also, note that the README contains more information the AUTH48 process: https://github.com/rfc-editor/AUTH48-rfc9920/blob/Approved/README.md Best regards, Rebecca VanRheenen RFC Production Center > On Jan 13, 2026, at 1:32 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 13, 2026, at 11:37, Rebecca VanRheenen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks for your patience as we work to understand how authors will use >> GitHub and tune our procedures accordingly. > > And thank you for your patience with us as well. A lesson already being > learned is that different authors will have different expectations about how > to do the new AUTH48. You might get an even more painful lesson in the future > when half the authors on a draft want to do it one way, and the other half > another way. > >> All of the comments with [rfced] in in-notes/authors/rfc9920.md were added >> as issues in the GitHub repo. We removed them from the .md file in GitHub to >> provide a better diff as we assumed authors would review the changes in >> GitHub. We posted the usual AUTH48 files in case we need to fall back to the >> email-based process for any reason. > > Erf. That means that those of us who want to do AUTH48 by pull request have > to *also* go through the issues, some of which make no sense out of context. > For example, https://github.com/rfc-editor/AUTH48-rfc9920/issues/22 says: > > In the second sentence, it is correct that this document > "establishes" the RSAB, or should it be "describes" or "specifies"? > > We can find the context by searching for the "Original" in the issue, but > this is much more painful than seeing the issues in-line as comments, which > is what you always did just fine in AUTH48. > >> Is the full diff in GitHub (using the arrows to expand the file) helpful to >> you? Link to the diff: >> https://github.com/rfc-editor/AUTH48-rfc9920/pull/1/changes. > > No, because it too is missing your comments with questions. > >> Or would it be easier for you if we remove the comments in >> in-notes/authors/rfc9920.md and create a new diff file at >> in-notes/authors/rfc9920-md-rfcdiff.html? > > Yes, I think we'll do that; it would be grand if this workflow is documented > at > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test > > We will also comment in the issues themselves. Having said that, it would be > nice for future authors to have exactly two choices: > > - Make notes in an .md file that has no comments, and also make comments in > the issues > > - Do a pull request based on an .md file that has comments, but don't touch > the issues > >> For the issues in GitHub, if you comment “okay”, “no change needed”, or >> similar, we will close that issue. If a change is needed for a certain >> issue, you can note that in the comments or add a PR. > > Will do. > > >> Please let us know if you have any further questions or suggestions! > > We might have more later, but for now this should get us going. > > --Paul Hoffman > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
