[Sidrops] Re: SIDROps Charter update

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Job Snijders wrote on 06/10/2025 07:03:
> Draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis has a bit of a checkered history: a few
> years ago it was sent forward to the IESG for publication, based on -
> what in retrospect turned out to be - NO implementation experience [2].
> Later on, it was decided draft-8210bis had to be returned from the RFC
> Editor queue back to the WG, in order to resolve several critical issues
> in that specification [3] (one example, brittle version negotation).

Right. I hadn't been paying enough attention in sidrops recently and had 
paged that chunk of context out.

In short, there is an actual operational issue here and, as you point 
out, it's important.

I.e. both from the point of view of the WG document timelines and from 
the point of view of ensuring that we don't repeat mistakes that wasted 
an awful lot of time in the past.

Given that this addresses a real and substantive operational problem 
associated with the current proposed change to allow the WG to publish 
standards track documents, that it has been long promised, and that it 
has overwhelming support in the working group, I think it would be 
important to add this in after all.

I've created a Github pull request for this:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-sidrops/charter/pull/2

Nick

> These issues are of the type that would've trivially recognized &
> resolved -- if the community had exerted a bit more patience and waited
> for software developers catch up & comb over the specification in
> detail by actually attempting to implement it!
> 
> Draft-8210bis' first "failure-to-launch" became a major motivation to
> formalize a requirement for running code, to hopefully avoid future
> wasting of time and resources. The 'loss of productivity' I refer to
> here is, for example, in the IESG reviews, which will all need to be
> redone.
> 
> In Q4 2023, the chairs announced a consensus had emerged to require
> "implementation before publication" and add this requisite to a future
> charter update. [4]
> 
> In summary, including the running code requirement was proposed and jointly
> agreed upon, to avoid future document production problems (like we saw with
> 8210bis in the past). Let's continue to follow that path.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
> 
> [1]: https://github.com/ietf-wg-sidrops/charter/commit/38dbe10f862be436d9629ce8831deb3fd7e7e269
> [2]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/MsK9BpLpfuTWjljTgN7SfXh_FBA/
> [3]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/TV0Gzys0J7M3PNwWZrAKWshGpSU/
> [4]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/54iqtt-Ug2lzMbr9KpQOnWsh2JM/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>