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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide