Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51.11.1\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <551275.1752595806@dyas>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 18:56:29 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C2378A3E-2518-48CA-8336-DA7DFB134C2C@kuehlewind.net>
References: <2027567.1749411385@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
 <49aa3e0a-71de-4f3d-a9c9-0fe7c0342c24@gmail.com>
 <BN2P110MB11070B3A4F8A4EEAA4549E97DC7AA@BN2P110MB1107.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <23797.1750953043@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
 <88C7EF29-C583-4DC0-97DD-A77599364202@kuehlewind.net>
 <551275.1752595806@dyas>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: UQDACNE6TWALEZOLM4YJHZOE6IX4EQFA
CC: "procon@ietf.org" <procon@ietf.org>,
 "gendispatch@ietf.org" <gendispatch@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BGendispatch=5D_Re=3A_=5Bprocon=5D_could_the_Updates_question_be?=
 =?utf-8?q?_within_the_charter_for_procon=3F?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/spFeS0G07CpUc7FxdYVkWYPjX58>

The draft provides a definition of the tags which are meta data of an =
RFC which I think should be uniformly defined for the whole series. If =
each stream uses these tags then, is a question for each stream =
separately.

> On 15. Jul 2025, at 18:10, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> =
wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
>> I thought the updates tag draft should go into RSWG, that also why we
>> resubmitted at some point with -rswg- in the name. However, that =
group
>> seems to be too much focused on other things :-(
>=20
> hi, I can see some mechanical questions that the RSWG should ask the =
RPC to
> figure out.    Particularly around Amends that effectively are =
complicated errata.
> It might be the RPC might want to subdivide some of =
Amends/Extends/See-Also
> into more categories.
>=20
> But, I think that the semantics of when/how/why to use these needs to =
remain
> with the stream itself.
>=20
>>> On 26. Jun 2025, at 17:50, Michael Richardson =
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> 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.  =3D=3D[ snip ]=3D=3D
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 I=C3=B8T =
consulting )
>>> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> procon mailing list -- procon@ietf.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to procon-leave@ietf.org
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> -=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Gendispatch mailing list -- gendispatch@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to gendispatch-leave@ietf.org