IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 26 June 2025 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B7839D94CC; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ySVFTjoCBcZk; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CFC839D94C1; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2BE3898F; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 11:50:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id xNXlSPJBzlXp; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 11:50:43 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1750953043; bh=Uu5L+mwrK4hWhfY8fqZmnjRdoLRuE6VcLwrLWbZC60w=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=vsbxviASbMpeADfZz5Gn93pzE0tSIvq8yxfoj0iNUZfntd8AO/ZeGjfA8M2/K9k3U 2eGP3msZpc5Zvbr3VMnKRfZtpAenCvTrIsL6o+kNnjyNwGxMWLVl6g2veOq0Zxo6VZ gW/lEVgzkoaEqPB9jzjUemHi2uV98u5Hptvz97js4KeiSwDE/b+Z3pldx/Pbnp2Tr7 vQfY1FuZL8NjgHA0Z4IoX71qx31a7JjljNWngzyuf4cGooEacBPoQ3Hrn/sPAvDNIZ w3D50TAxSpcaTRZ1GUIHBRatl9CKZ2zkHD5vN0F1UNoXLsCkgL5fxkhCs9hIR88X2U lXAEiLciTEKlA==
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:b241:6fff:fe09:a92b]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF763898E; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 11:50:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DDC1B9; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 11:50:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "procon@ietf.org" <procon@ietf.org>, "gendispatch@ietf.org" <gendispatch@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BN2P110MB11070B3A4F8A4EEAA4549E97DC7AA@BN2P110MB1107.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <2027567.1749411385@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <49aa3e0a-71de-4f3d-a9c9-0fe7c0342c24@gmail.com> <BN2P110MB11070B3A4F8A4EEAA4549E97DC7AA@BN2P110MB1107.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0;<'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 11:50:43 -0400
Message-ID: <23797.1750953043@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: 4ZNMVMII5MMR77ILVX6LOKO2XPZ6QD3U
X-Message-ID-Hash: 4ZNMVMII5MMR77ILVX6LOKO2XPZ6QD3U
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Gendispatch] Re: [procon] Re: could the Updates question be within the charter for procon?
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/-MwCd3o3XCZX0NdEC3mHTdhTI20>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:gendispatch-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gendispatch-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gendispatch-leave@ietf.org>

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> wrote:
    > [Roman] Procedurally, I am trying to find the right balance between
    > accomplishing the original goal of PROCON to simply producing a 2026bis
    > and 2048bis which consolidates all updates into a single draft while
    > simultaneously opening up these documents for procedural revisions.  I
    > am open to recharters at a measured pace.  My current opinion is that
    > having stable 2026bis/2048bis I-Ds or even RFCs will position us best
    > to them make subsequent changes.  ==[ snip ]==

This works for me.
While I agree that it does not fit into the current procon charter, I think
it's the same group of people in the end.
So let's get to stable 2026bis first.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status