Eric Rescorla writes: > I don't believe that the intent of the language you are quoting from > RFC 2026 is to forbid private messages between WG members and the > chairs [0] and it's quite a common practice [1]
The second link you point to is RFC 2418 specifically allowing "private meetings" for a "design team", i.e., for a "sub-group of a working group to develop a proposal to solve a particular problem". Privately lobbying WG chairs regarding WG decisions isn't forming a design team: it's a classic example of a transparency violation. (It's also obviously not covered by the first link that you point to.) Furthermore, there would be no need for RFC 2418 to make this specific "private meetings" exception if off-list messages were categorically excluded from the record-keeping requirements in Section 8 of RFC 2026. This exception thus _contradicts_ your view of the record-keeping requirements rather than _supporting_ it. More importantly, the clear text of the record-keeping requirements doesn't stop after "the archives of Working Group electronic mail mailing lists"; it continues by including "all written contributions from participants that pertain to the organization's standards-related activity". When the rules are clear, claims that they were intended as something else are neither plausible nor relevant; unless and until the rules are changed, they have to be followed. > If you think that RFC 2026 forbids all private communications, then > this seems like an issue that's bigger than TLS The TLS WG chairs and AD are keeping TLS-WG-related email secret in violation of RFC 2026. Correcting that is within scope for the WG. I'm not proposing changes to the rules; I'm asking the TLS WG chairs and AD to follow the rules. ---D. J. Bernstein _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
