IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Sidrops] Re: Rechartering: implementation policy

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 24 October 2025 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: sidrops@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: sidrops@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287227B8D0E3 for <sidrops@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 02:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-2.182, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 ITCjeCkbV5fB for <sidrops@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 02:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1780B7B8D0CE for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 02:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crumpet.local (vpn.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.netability.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A85729D054; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 10:20:32 +0100 (IST)
To: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
References: <AA5D61DF-E7B0-47DD-A6E2-305C25F629E4@gigix.net> <cce754cf-10cf-bede-30dc-8403981cc438@foobar.org> <aPpQTSj1-23fmSO3@feather.sobornost.net> <B90DBF5B-7570-4A9E-9B16-0B592A89DD8D@gigix.net>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <85c22470-4719-c89c-6612-91178a6e823a@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 10:20:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 26.0; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.65
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B90DBF5B-7570-4A9E-9B16-0B592A89DD8D@gigix.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID-Hash: K2WH6N6QEDFWUGLBLHEJCSENIIDJUM3T
X-Message-ID-Hash: K2WH6N6QEDFWUGLBLHEJCSENIIDJUM3T
X-MailFrom: nick@foobar.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-sidrops.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Job Snijders <job@bsd.nl>, sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Sidrops] Re: Rechartering: implementation policy
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/nnHDGEfHNj13S0F0KFbs8Cnscrc>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:sidrops-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:sidrops-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sidrops-leave@ietf.org>

Luigi Iannone wrote on 24/10/2025 08:28:
> Informational documents do not necessarily represent a consensus (please 
> see: https://www.ietf.org/process/process/informational-vs-experimental/)
> In this case how can you mandate two implementations?
> STD track looks to me as a way to represent the WG consensus and, hence, 
> can be used to mandate the two+ implementation policy.

Hi Luigi,

independent submission documents don't necessarily represent any 
consensus, but I'm not sure I've seen any WG-adopted Informational IDs 
published without WG consensus in any of the working groups I hang out 
in. I'm sure it's probably happened at the IETF, but it's not the norm.

Which is where both the problem and the solution is: WG consensus is 
needed in practice for Informational documents too. I.e having a charter 
requirement for 2+ implementations is fully workable within the WG 
consensus model.

Nick

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status