IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 15 July 2025 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 D5FC344634F2; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 09:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
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 WoXzExLl0KIr; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 09:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D01BF44634EA; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 09:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (unknown [142.169.16.189]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C8F71F4A4; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 16:10:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 98E0DA028C; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:10:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F75A00C2; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:10:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "procon@ietf.org" <procon@ietf.org>, "gendispatch@ietf.org" <gendispatch@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <88C7EF29-C583-4DC0-97DD-A77599364202@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>
Comments: In-reply-to "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> message dated "Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:08:57 +0200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; Emacs 29.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:10:06 -0400
Message-ID: <551275.1752595806@dyas>
Message-ID-Hash: 27BEUMXR7QI6IFVF2JI6ITV2MPRGFITY
X-Message-ID-Hash: 27BEUMXR7QI6IFVF2JI6ITV2MPRGFITY
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: [Gendispatch] Re: [procon] could the Updates question be within the charter for procon?
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/wjvop98SXbT8IwBXPz7IQRxowpk>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:gendispatch-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gendispatch-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gendispatch-leave@ietf.org>

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 :-(

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.

But, I think that the semantics of when/how/why to use these needs to remain
with the stream itself.

    >> On 26. Jun 2025, at 17:50, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> 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.  ==[ snip ]==
    >>
    >> 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.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
    >> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> procon mailing list -- procon@ietf.org
    >> To unsubscribe send an email to procon-leave@ietf.org




--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status