Jean Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
That explains why I've seldom seen it.
>> 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.
Fair enough.
>> 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?
Poke the IESG.
I think the template is on the wiki. Perhaps you can ask for forgiveness
rather than permission :-)
>> } 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?
I feel that it would be good to have the authors think about what their
AUTH48 process is going to be before they get there. Ideally, we'd have
four (or whatever) named flavours that authors could just opt in so that
people can build muscle memory.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
