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."
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
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/wjvop98SXbT8IwBXPz7IQRxowpk>

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


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 202=
6bis
    >>> 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 th=
at
    >>> having stable 2026bis/2048bis I-Ds or even RFCs will position us be=
st
    >>> to them make subsequent changes.  =3D=3D[ snip ]=3D=3D
    >>
    >> 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 I=C3=B8T c=
onsulting )
    >> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> procon mailing list -- procon@ietf.org
    >> To unsubscribe send an email to procon-leave@ietf.org




=2D-
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*




--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEERK+9HEcJHTJ9UqTMlUzhVv38QpAFAmh2fV4ACgkQlUzhVv38
QpALAgf9FHjwzycsWTP5+G+/V6yDYjmGs94y38EHDdVP9fy5KROfus2KDShKMnMY
63pbDOX1cndo6ywPaMT//OYbjcdx2AZz5dHxpSGU+MXGhqddypZFhyxCWRiN26M9
iYxqNzCtt0Luiw/Jw0vvoRqBRd7iGGNgQPvGZD6jWOfFpyA0smijDnMGBn/w+hT7
XnVNTo0AyFd6IQ3OqWzWbR754dnOUCbpoyWVb0HK2PwgFC9w7NbojFnPO2GK6Qgj
qZHRv1IxXbNCXvVSzdNVB8c2NM6db1zvrhMcgv3jTBu7RJsWlJJEXisU9kAct0e8
S7dfppHXLsykuN+8NX4w17+Y9TtWpw==
=LdYT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--