[Sidrops] Re: SIDROps Charter update

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 03, 2025 at 01:47:46PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> I don't have a particular issue with "let's implement a bug fix to get
> something out the door, and we'll do a proper fix shortly". That
> applies to both running code and charter updates. For the moment, the
> manifest-numbers draft can't progress without this charter update, so
> it's not massively unreasonable to deal with this and deal with a
> broader recharter later on. 

Ratification of the already-agreed upon requirement for implementations
is not a "broader recharter", it is a small update. In fact there much
internal harmony when revising the publication tracks SIDROPS uses to
tie that an explicit expression as to what standards we hold ourselves
to for publication to deliver quality documents.

> The broader recharter is necessary if sidrops wants to deal with
> protocol maintenance instead of pure operations.
>
> In terms of a requirement for two separate implementations for a
> standards track publication, this is 1. important and 2. something
> that extends well outside the scope of sidrops.
>
> I.e. the proper fix is to deal with this at broader ietf level, applicable
> to all PS docs.

I consider this a suggestion to boil the ocean. Each WG to some degree
has their own practises and definitely their own charter. Back in
December 2023 this particular WG came to consensus to require
demonstration of interopable implementations AND concluded that this
should be ratified in the charter.

Again, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/54iqtt-Ug2lzMbr9KpQOnWsh2JM/
and
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/9C_3R_tPzJFwdsbh5G2TuCR0jfk/

While it is agreeable that you perhaps wish that all PS publications
were based on actual implementation experience, punting this subject to
an IETF-wide PS policy change is not helpful for SIDROPS.

In any case, any charter update has to go through through both IETF
last-call and IESG review, and I'm not super optimistic because of the
apparent lack of consensus with the version as-proposed.

Kind regards,

Job