Hi Timo,
At 03:28 AM 09-05-2026, Timo Gerke wrote:
As suggested by Eliot Lear during the initial GENDISPATCH discussion, I
am moving this disvussion for a procedural reform of the AUTH48 process
to this group. The goal is to provide predictability, protect consensus
integrity, and eliminate unnecessary administrative overhead for Area
Directors and Chairs.
The Axiom:
Quality assurance MUST be done in the WG stage and NOT in the
AUTH48 state.
If a document requires substantial technical changes or a late-stage
redesign after leaving the IESG evaluation, the current process has
failed earlier. Misusing AUTH48 as a hidden extension of the Working
Group stage bypasses the rough consensus of the community and introduces
severe systemic risks, as currently demonstrated by Cluster C430.
The Problem: "Not Working Process" in Cluster C430
Currently, a single document undergoing a late-stage technical overhaul
can hold an entire cluster hostage. In Cluster C430, 24 documents are
eady for publication (in PUB or AUTH48-DONE state) but have been
stalled for over five months because one primary blocker
(draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis) is stuck.
Interestingly, for this primary blocker, IANA has already signaled
"OK - Actions required", proving that the technical core parameters are
officially validated. There is no logical or procedural justification
for a five-month editorial delay blocking 24 completely unrelated
documents.
I picked a draft in AUTH48:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/Kei7U9Wc9RShHtyP8QfnzQRmJdU/
The draft is from the IETF Stream. There is an IETF Area Director in
copy. It could be someone else but there is generally someone who is
not an author in copy. It is possible to send that person an email
to ask what may be causing a delay in the AUTH48 procedure.
Here's the information for Cluster C430:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C430 It shows that there is a
"hold" for RFC 9846 (not published yet). There is also an
explanation for the hold. I clicked one of the documents and I got
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9848.txt It does not look like the
publication of the document as a RFC was stalled.
Was the delay caused by an author/working group setting a dependency
on a external "Work in Progress" document?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
