[Gendispatch] Re: Requesting time for draft-rsalz-2026bis in Dublin

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

I can't object to the 2026bis and 2418bis drafts being discussed in Dublin. However, I think there's an overarching topic that *must* be discussed at the same time. What is the problem statement that justifies working on these particular documents, what other standards-process problems are in need of work, and how should the resulting documents be organized? So some sort of framing document is also needed.

fwiw I will vigorously oppose rolling all the IPR stuff into 2026bis, but that's just part of the document organisation question.

Regards
    Brian

On 17-Sep-24 04:20, Salz, Rich wrote:
> We (Scott Bradner and I) have published a draft, draft-rsalz-2026bis, that incorporates RFC 2026 and all the RFCs that subsequently updated it. This provides a single unified view of the IETF standards process. While we think there is value in having this published as an RFC, there is sentiment among the authors and others in the IETF community that the sections on copyright and patents should be removed from this ID since those topics are fully covered in RFCs 5378 and 8179. If that’s done, perhaps a tightly chartered WG is the way to do it, or we could submit a new draft that removes that text. Either way, the document could be used as a basis for further work if there is consensus to do to. (Note that there is a separate message about a 2418bis draft.)
> 
> We are asking for agenda time in Dublin. I will be onsite and could present there if you want. Discussion with the chairs indicates that this list, gendispatch, is the place to talk about it until then.
> 
>