Return-Path: 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 E155C3269A01; Sun, 8 Jun 2025 12:36:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 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_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 2hjqWempuTNA; Sun, 8 Jun 2025 12:36:37 -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 7042D32699F8; Sun, 8 Jun 2025 12:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58481800F; Sun, 8 Jun 2025 15:36:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id Z3AtbLbXX4aw; Sun, 8 Jun 2025 15:36:34 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1749411394; bh=ClMqIFmP62S0eW63Xsn9styDQ7Ij9l50zfcAWScHoTg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=dqRm5CjQmC6a1AKmyJhLbhJKsYdoMvXCp+iGB40VBE3pPezha1icGCvYsit3fWlZf b1RoUDsyG2ejsOYp24g72/XI/SwI2dJ6wsX9x5h/UL4IG42mmUEUJdVgZF+5ZadLKr 7jNoOnPxpKo1lEWv5imUefzcUyB12N6y7EWAaVF4S84yZT/LyOUlYNrIifjYxHchrQ acLp0SxZ96dP5inlbu0gpiwDFHncaFa7QHCh+icRa9IEBWNH3Az4qQdPCUNMpFhDTW W+Qw4xjgRYsIVtOR6Aah12DkzLJD32GZPG44zPeipw/2PM/S/bmvgqX3X8qmAnq3mG dxw0oRJUzN71g== Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:4c22:dbff:fefd:1b86]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C8A1800C; Sun, 8 Jun 2025 15:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBA618E; Sun, 8 Jun 2025 15:36:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: procon@ietf.org, gendispatch@ietf.org X-Attribution: mcr 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 Message-ID-Hash: TLVHBJGV2B34OCKK7SHOAPUCUCLH4QQ6 X-Message-ID-Hash: TLVHBJGV2B34OCKK7SHOAPUCUCLH4QQ6 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: =?utf-8?q?=5BGendispatch=5D_could_the_Updates_question_be_within_the_charter?= =?utf-8?q?_for_procon=3F?= List-Id: General Area Dispatch Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 sta= nding." see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration/ba= llot/ 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 de= al with this topic. In 2021, the IETF111 dispatched this to a mailing list, b= ut as far as I can see, this never occured. I could be wrong. =2D- Michael Richardson . o O ( IPv6 I=C3=B8T consulti= ng ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFKBAEBCgA0FiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAmhF5jkWHG1jcitpZXRm QHNhbmRlbG1hbi5jYQAKCRCAi3D73dDdZcBDB/4hEixyJyKWVhgxDu4qcpAw3CcH IITAo9nLcYzI46NUnMle/68B+mrjPwVjfGDwG/j3QqBFEL9iYMLZiGb72RrYueRS Xd9RusuD5yBTVSKtOdFQroj4skQRv9+j8bmVaXdTNMSY5ywDtTIXw0zsJumAssxl a+s+R7P7Mivl8bTxj8JlstJnmsiD5igbNCE2QZ/UxhHqW2sUQKVlxTt7uivIVtff cb5Iytp6qMpg7BdzSVrjlGsZ9VL0t27dJz57ftTJB6XLTBK/HsYw1YF0TFmTgA+x 5uYFW1JQ2VHSfDDzKdfPfx1+EI0NbrEJwpSXeneVqsFruNQSJqdeeOOlkHOn =HDu2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--