[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] could the Updates question be within the charter for procon?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 13 June 2025 02:39 UTC

Message-ID: <49aa3e0a-71de-4f3d-a9c9-0fe7c0342c24@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:39:17 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, procon@ietf.org, gendispatch@ietf.org
References: <2027567.1749411385@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2027567.1749411385@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Message-ID-Hash: 24HWCPSCATAZ4NXW3OZMGIBFHYRRKLVI
Precedence: list
Subject: [Gendispatch] Re: [procon] could the Updates question be within the charter for procon?
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/-CC3vY4lkM5WLkuPyetiY6rwDLc>

Firstly, I'm a big fan of draft-kuehlewind-update-tag, so I'd like to see it
advance. That doesn't even require a WG - there is still such a thing as
direct submission to the IESG, if there is at least one AD in support. The
IETF process does not require Gendispatch.

Secondly, there really is an objective difference between amending an existing
spec and extending it, so I have no doubt that these options would enter use
immediately on being available. So while the IESG argument that they have no
standing today is true, that is not relevant to what happens tomorrow.

It does seem well outside the procon charter, though. Personally I can't
see anything wrong with direct submission.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 09-Jun-25 07:36, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> I recently saw the IESG comment that  draft-kuehlewind-update-tag has no
> status, "As other ADs have balloted, [I-D.kuehlewind-update-tag] has no standing."
> 
> see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration/ballot/
> 
> I am rather disturbed by this.  As a document author, I feel that if I want
> to use Amend/Extended/See Also in my document, it's my perogative.  That the
> IESG has not seen to provide us with anything better than "Updates" five
> years after the problem was clearly identified, and frankly more than a
> decade after the problem has appeared is a problem.  That it seems that the
> IESG wants Pascal to remove useful information from his document is really
> dumb.
> 
> My understanding is that some of the reason for not advancing the document
> was that the IESG wasn't sure if there was any real consensus around this.
> Well: what better way to find out if it's useful than to actually find out if
> authors want to use it.  I do.
> 
> The procon charter is quite limited, and would need to be rechartered to deal
> with this topic.  In 2021, the IETF111 dispatched this to a mailing list, but
> as far as I can see, this never occured.  I could be wrong.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> procon mailing list -- procon@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to procon-leave@ietf.org

[Gendispatch] could the Updates question be withi… Michael Richardson
[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] could the Updates ques… Brian E Carpenter
[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] Re: could the Updates … Roman Danyliw
[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] Re: could the Updates … Michael Richardson
[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] could the Updates ques… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] could the Updates ques… Michael Richardson
[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] could the Updates ques… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] could the Updates ques… Michael Richardson
[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] could the Updates ques… Pete Resnick