Return-Path: X-Original-To: procon@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: procon@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2838F10C2ADF1 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2026 19:47:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1782960470; bh=Oo5PmcqqF01WdLF5zQfF7o/Wh1mSQA+tAEv4QaTYWN8=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc; b=wQ9R7YR6W4niaxjZrLySs5fDS+2Q5L2ba03y6EbAkwJyosbtwrnpFM6rhgLDht1lz 4CAvXYoCbG9Hv9jPDk5EafmHQz29i9N4nEplGkK7nzxDUtY05NohlNXx9FgZ79HZIb 2muAa8IRwkT50Bn85pySb92hz3thj6FfHnVRa0b0= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=gmail.com 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 NjftsDJ0dqH5 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2026 19:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D256910C2AD7B for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2026 19:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-49190e20a0cso629711b6e.1 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2026 19:47:30 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1782960450; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20260327; b=inAc23vBsbsg5QP/Gbj3W5nWeR2elVT+gS5RPNpZKk8hsHGm5yRj9MhBcZjsJMbySS qjQbKpdlHhGRSfEJBlBAKIKg4+sq5Yc7nYPWuDiOFUGxzsLA9oZpVK/FKeVApUx6Sy/g gX2WuODufrokx7GZ/zj6LowesYadTKaJN/vpVp8VK3Wm2J1hPxW9Gib8Kt1N4hWc9Fw7 WFe5+IPzISHiQzkUgavVghOpQI+eior3OxagwcGbYSub/D96D35ZNRetkclTnm/7YcnK RzVSY0DJO11OZg2TZ4PzMXOT6YCeKpW99NhKYYYtOwEPjp6eBqVJXxS9/QgOusvSkuuQ Rn0Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20260327; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=B72cgkV8ZLWVJiMMyaq6kjwrGEbMz4vHzrZJQcCFz2k=; fh=L+mJWNLjii0a3j0pqXZ5YqT8U00zSyvTiMpQjKTVBCU=; b=OZkbFAxNJNam4v0qjSehrcPkdMOSW1uY61GG1kW7G19mMZ8g2bZCIFuPrbkQ9RYuGY apQZ5fR9vM6DNanm6+JN7SvEimjOOIbrG2qmQtU8mizn4eNFa7ANqDna1Xq6uLrx1WAO Q9u/xuq3tkbb1s/2zs+Cy1kzgY/RUFask8uvaW5IwvrOt/2BgDbA6bd2dt6hC2D23dlk +wSDpeVTIZ+iEWRC4xR1UQgxprJ3akbe144Bgl6svSQMrie5iLigGFoW9KU7WkoM1XMb pKVJ9iX4iT1I6xRKbKWG4hxtXRGPJXWcDwipGfBb3v4NvSVnRDpUWpw9Kh9jdsHWfpOv xX3g==; darn=ietf.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1782960450; x=1783565250; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=B72cgkV8ZLWVJiMMyaq6kjwrGEbMz4vHzrZJQcCFz2k=; b=I6E1R3xqvNkxzlRfyeWwKL/EmW9elmlASI+EYU2D3au4IClZ2pCSaHEsyhhS2wlu6V 8b8Wx2qDVFAKr2moeKvaKWByxvRjjbSXnXetHGhhMYCSwHJOqLSOdE8wNEa206mxLg2i tYzeDSfurPKYNKWcgpzCsxLi1bLPtd5qAo6fuSGO/8DeNiNIy/0+o7J5rTjr352MCKtd wnjoxtDf1pNLqRWLlgygsiWj2jBxu5ziFRSK4ujaJaMQYfvc5ASuAH3ktggmtv8zlJgj OqcfHAb0gSg+p8RUWuylysHQ5jgdZFfpTemXVO1R/RnY3Ej2x6rzqlhIH0nvZjkkZ9RW mojA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1782960450; x=1783565250; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=B72cgkV8ZLWVJiMMyaq6kjwrGEbMz4vHzrZJQcCFz2k=; b=MqikpwF5+WyOEayn/JxSPINhaJtdYGnPqdkOjgV4ME/69n0N38TtLE3+9l/hTWZ03g KEQTE0bTnPM+bd34buQHwZ9vrvobWyLHD5JjsRIgxLeDElP6JSZvaH1HG4LqyiYxPcZ1 zALd4pLCe5RpaQOY2aHTZV2Of53tFnl1EDiCKamETgrLissLZwfQcKCBzelvZaW/tx/E 62izkbnSXBZrO40LyNc4pBmP7EGW4IZATrObFWGfqWCkWYde6vtvLWGyk5yX3yf933dq r9kuis+GxS1FDYYwmaLd7Ds39iaA5+Zeq4nWJ1X6+o3mA8rFRB5fpqDGf7qkEk7I/iao zc+A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ+81Qk0UkHnAilyS3WHjY0Ivsc7zrh51Qhm6XI4i0YyoUHPN2kir/X69gNYbaABWw91lJspzfI=@ietf.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz1p3OF2tA/bC455zCLcahMsTyaLR+7W2iElWN9ng3Kd4UmqyJI C9oDR3+GBb2kUy7BzYIWDRpz+gAG9WgfzuMV/xFge8ICjRVy2dT7QArrHrt5vpnw/czYP7aKIXs J0h/KrXxhxSDaRQLCRKpwwp6FpmH6tbPjI83f X-Gm-Gg: AfdE7cmSyD3ckqT1SWkXZfDd4bpFVoWClc4QRsS2hm7c30VRkoVLF4XkbobbY2dYGO/ EhdqJlkQ/zE4aw1cz5YNlQ7uKoA2aZPEhz1lJj3S8epewPxOgQbE2/WNXbPSl8vofnSG9/t3HfH WvLjg7KS00rnIqgOFPu+/RYTjX6e7n76a4d3y350Ku78vzJHmjffkyYCMc2wMUBfOKTUMvXOrPe lY27CySJU3iVcDvVDyVIoZUVlp8fz4jDOOKPZgXopKaBGSyUg1p/2GL/H2HHJWwCy80j9tWnFH2 Znxl/kwwKJrlFxvYJev0y7OZ3fk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:81db:b0:497:c1f1:1511 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-497c1f1165emr977395b6e.16.1782960450110; Wed, 01 Jul 2026 19:47:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20260424213838.2086629.qmail@cr.yp.to> <6.2.5.6.2.20260425231408.1a664778@elandnews.com> <60639452-fcd0-4e83-8871-b60e2692baf5@gmail.com> <09bc01dcd64f$6578ac80$306a0580$@olddog.co.uk> <3d256fca-c903-4347-8b3f-671d651d7bf0@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3d256fca-c903-4347-8b3f-671d651d7bf0@gmail.com> From: David Schinazi Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2026 19:47:19 -0700 X-Gm-Features: AVVi8CccohgITkiphnNsu3GpA1ny6NAitOgJeErU1UbC6gKVT2mSvnJD6-dygBY Message-ID: To: Brian E Carpenter Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000470a66065597d47e" Message-ID-Hash: CCT523U6PNGGKYYLUXNHYGWDJNTZ6QZC X-Message-ID-Hash: CCT523U6PNGGKYYLUXNHYGWDJNTZ6QZC X-MailFrom: dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com 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 CC: John C Klensin , adrian@olddog.co.uk, Andrew Campling , "Salz, Rich" , Process Enthusiasts X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bprocon=5D_Re=3A_WG_Adoption_of_an_I-D_/_Procon_2418_bis=3A_Upda?= =?utf-8?q?ted_text_for_section_8=2E2?= List-Id: "Discussion of consolidating process documents and changes to the standards process per IETF 121 ALLDISPATCH." Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --000000000000470a66065597d47e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks, everyone. I've incorporated this suggestion into this PR: https://github.com/ietf-wg-procon/2418bis/pull/61/changes David On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 3:06=E2=80=AFPM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > Repeating what I may have said elsewhere, the key point that many > newcomers and some old-timers don't understand is that "adopt" > does not mean "agree". Non-native speakers are particularly liable > to this misunderstanding because of multiple dictionary definitions > of "adopt". Even a few words and an informative reference to > RFC 7221 would be enough (given that the community has shown little > enthusiasm in the past for a normative definition of "adopt".) > > Regards/Ng=C4=81 mihi > Brian Carpenter > > On 30-Apr-26 01:26, John C Klensin wrote: > > (PROCON list copied, IAB dropped, further discussions should probably > > go to PROCON exclusively) > > > > Agreed, although I see one or two contradictions inherent in WG > > adoption. If the idea is that WGs "adopt" a document in order to > > start working on it: > > > > * couldn't one claim that discussion of whether a document should be > > adopted is out of scope... until it is adopted? "MAY formally adopt" > > does not seem to me to solve that problem, just to add questions > > about what happens if they don't and what value adoption (or the lack > > thereof) actually has. > > > > * if a WG is looking at a problem but is presented with two (or more) > > alternate approaches to solving it, it is reasonable to adopt both > > (all) of those documents with the expectation of discarding one or > > more later? "candidate for publication..." may argue against that... > > or not, depending on how seriously the WG and the community take > > candidacy. > > > > While I think Andrew's text is an improvement and that it definitely > > does not make things worse, it feels like either some additional > > effort is needed here or that we should be remembering both the > > occasional advantages of some procedural vagueness and our old > > principle that every WG, and especially every Area, may be different > > than others. > > > > john > > > > > > --On Monday, April 27, 2026 15:09 +0100 Adrian Farrel > > wrote: > > > >> That's nice text, Andrew. > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Andrew Campling > >> Sent: 27 April 2026 13:37 > >> To: Salz, Rich ; Brian E Carpenter > >> ; ietf@ietf.org > >> Cc: iab@iab.org > >> Subject: RE: WG Adoption of an I-D > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm not convinced that the text as worded is sufficiently clear > >> that (rough) consensus is not required prior to WG adoption of a > >> draft and propose the following. > >> > >> > >> > >> Working Groups MAY formally adopt an Internet-Draft to indicate > >> that it is being considered as a candidate for publication as an > >> RFC. The main difference between a draft owned by an individual and > >> one adopted by a working group is that the adoption process hands > >> over change control to the working group. Once a document is > >> adopted, Document Editors are tasked with documenting the consensus > >> of the Working Group. > >> > >> > >> > >> Adoption of a draft is the starting point for the working group to > >> work on the document, with no suggestion that there is agreement on > >> its content at the point of adoption. Working group chairs MAY > >> adopt a draft if they believe there is sufficient interest in the > >> topic covered by the draft; there is no requirement to establish > >> rough consensus from the working group for the adoption of a draft. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Salz, Rich > > >> Sent: 27 April 2026 13:12 > >> To: Brian E Carpenter >> >; ietf@ietf.org > >> > >> > >> Cc: iab@iab.org > >> Subject: Re: Complaint to IAB regarding a declaration of consensus > >> to adopt a non-hybrid draft > >> > >> > >> > >> * Yes, although I now wonder whether we should also underline that > >> adopt !=3D agree. > >> > >> > >> > >> I think it's implied by the current text, but if you want to make > >> it more explicit, something like "adoption is the starting point > >> for the WG to work on the draft." > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > procon mailing list -- procon@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to procon-leave@ietf.org > --000000000000470a66065597d47e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks, everyone. I've incorporated this suggestion in= to this PR:
On Wed, Apr 29, 202= 6 at 3:06=E2=80=AFPM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
Repeating what I may have said el= sewhere, the key point that many
newcomers and some old-timers don't understand is that "adopt"= ;
does not mean "agree". Non-native speakers are particularly liabl= e
to this misunderstanding because of multiple dictionary definitions
of "adopt". Even a few words and an informative reference to
RFC 7221 would be enough (given that the community has shown little
enthusiasm in the past for a normative definition of "adopt".)
Regards/Ng=C4=81 mihi
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Brian Carpenter

On 30-Apr-26 01:26, John C Klensin wrote:
> (PROCON list copied, IAB dropped, further discussions should probably<= br> > go to PROCON exclusively)
>
> Agreed, although I see one or two contradictions inherent in WG
> adoption.=C2=A0 If the idea is that WGs "adopt" a document i= n order to
> start working on it:
>
> * couldn't one claim that discussion of whether a document should = be
> adopted is out of scope... until it is adopted?=C2=A0 "MAY formal= ly adopt"
> does not seem to me to solve that problem, just to add questions
> about what happens if they don't and what value adoption (or the l= ack
> thereof) actually has.
>
> * if a WG is looking at a problem but is presented with two (or more)<= br> > alternate approaches to solving it, it is reasonable to adopt both
> (all) of those documents with the expectation of discarding one or
> more later?=C2=A0 "candidate for publication..." may argue a= gainst that...
> or not, depending on how seriously the WG and the community take
> candidacy.
>
> While I think Andrew's text is an improvement and that it definite= ly
> does not make things worse, it feels like either some additional
> effort is needed here or that we should be remembering both the
> occasional advantages of some procedural vagueness and our old
> principle that every WG, and especially every Area, may be different > than others.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 john
>
>
> --On Monday, April 27, 2026 15:09 +0100 Adrian Farrel
> <adrian@ol= ddog.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That's nice text, Andrew.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>>
>> From: Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting>
>> Sent: 27 April 2026 13:37
>> To: Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com>; Brian E Carpenter
>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; ietf@ietf.org
>> Cc: iab@iab.org
>> Subject: RE: WG Adoption of an I-D
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>>
>> I'm not convinced that the text as worded is sufficiently clea= r
>> that (rough) consensus is not required prior to WG adoption of a >> draft and propose the following.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>>
>> Working Groups MAY formally adopt an Internet-Draft to indicate >> that it is being considered as a candidate for publication as an >> RFC. The main difference between a draft owned by an individual an= d
>> one adopted by a working group is that the adoption process hands<= br> >> over change control to the working group.=C2=A0 Once a document is=
>> adopted, Document Editors are tasked with documenting the consensu= s
>> of the Working Group.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>>
>> Adoption of a draft is the starting point for the working group to=
>> work on the document, with no suggestion that there is agreement o= n
>> its content at the point of adoption.=C2=A0 Working group chairs M= AY
>> adopt a draft if they believe there is sufficient interest in the<= br> >> topic covered by the draft; there is no requirement to establish >> rough consensus from the working group for the adoption of a draft= .
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>>
>> From: Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com <mailto:rsalz@akamai.com> >
>> Sent: 27 April 2026 13:12
>> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
>> <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> >; ietf@ietf.org
>> <mailto:ietf= @ietf.org>
>>
>> Cc: iab@iab.org <mailto:iab@iab.org<= /a>>
>> Subject: Re: Complaint to IAB regarding a declaration of consensus=
>> to adopt a non-hybrid draft
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>>
>> *=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Yes, although I now wonder whether we should also u= nderline that
>> adopt !=3D agree.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>>
>> I think it's implied by the current text, but if you want to m= ake
>> it more explicit, something like "adoption is the starting po= int
>> for the WG to work on the draft."
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
procon mailing list -- procon@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to procon-leave@ietf.org
--000000000000470a66065597d47e--