Hi all, On 7/8/25 10:31 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Jay Daley <[email protected]> wrote: > The AUTH state is not a new state but an existing one - see > https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfc-publication-process for the full state > diagram. I was unaware that such a state existed; and I suspect that since we enter in/out of it at various places, that many authors aren't either.
[JM] The AUTH state hasn't been used much in the past (7 times for docs published in the last 3 years), and only when the editor needs information from the authors in order to continue editing. Normally we just write up our questions as we go and present them at AUTH48.
The mental collision with AUTH48 is unfortunate, and since this occurs always before EDIT or AUTH48, I would prefer it had a new name for this step. INTAKE was very good. I'd change "AUTH" to "QUESTIONS" myself.
[JM] Yes, it is unfortunate. The new queue management system (Purple) will have better state names, like "Author Input Needed". However, we can't update these names in the current end-of-life system, so we're making do with what we have.
Some of the questions seem to overlap some of the shepherd write-ups. Maybe these are questions the shepherd could/should pose to the WG, even if the final answer goes to the RPC.
[JM] It would be overall helpful to have some of these questions posed earlier. What's the process for updating Doc Shepherd write-up?
} We expect that the authors will answer the intake form quickly as the } document is still fresh in their minds. If we don't receive an answer within } a week, though, we will send a reminder, and we will escalate to a stream For AUTH48, there are different styles/expectations among groups of authors as to whether to answer immediately without consultation; vs forming a conclave to come to a group answer. And things in between. And time zones and vacations and... Maybe the first question should: Is there a lead author/editor that will coordinate the rest?
[JM] Is this something that should be captured in a Doc Shepherd write-up?
If there some movement towards an issue-tracker based RPC/AUTH48, then maybe this is a good place to try that out. I dunno exactly. As a WG chair, I've tried to coach authors for what happens next. I still feel very hand-wavy, and the authoritative link Jay posted above is too formal... I really need a cartoon version of it that. (like the minute physics videos)
[JM] We'll see what we can do here. Thanks! Jean
In one case, I just couldn't keep the authors from applying the AUTH48 edits to their github *BEFORE* answering... and that sometimes took awhile. I think a bigger picture view would help. I feel that some of the questions might wind up leading authors to think. "Oh yes, we should capitalize..." or something like that. Or "This RFC9499 is really cool, why didn't we use it". These are not terrible things, but again, I'd rather it happen earlier if possible. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
