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

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

To repeat what I said about another proposed charter additional that I think is applicable here (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/procon/bRHwbO4kUyJv5BZ4jCCyT9OGvbI/)

==[ snip ]==
[Roman] Currently, the scope of the PROCON charter come from topics which saw broad support from the ALLDISPATCH process or subsequent support on the mailing list.  At this point, I don't feel we have that for this topic so I am going to defer it to future discussions.

[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 ]==

Per the IETF 111 minutes at https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-111-gendispatch
==[ snip ]==
Chairs: dispatch recommendation is to create a new mailing list to continue discussion and work on this draft, and then putting the draft through the new RFC process is a possibility, when it is finished.
==[ snip ]==

My quick scan of the non-WG lists, I don't see one that aligns with this topic.  If I'm wrong, could someone please out the list.  I am happy to make one if there is interest.

I'm not sure if the reference to the "new RFC process" is a reference to take this topic to the RSWG.  It was noted in the GENDISPATCH session that this might be a cross stream issue.

My understand from the IETF 111 discussion was that there was no consensus to make a change.

Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 10:39 PM
To: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [procon] Re: could the Updates question be within the charter for procon?

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/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 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> procon mailing list -- [e-mail] To unsubscribe send an email to 
> [e-mail]