Minutes IETF111: gendispatch
minutes-111-gendispatch-01

# GENDISPATCH Virtual Meeting @IETF-111

Wednesday 28 July 2021
19:00-21:00 UTC

[MeetEcho](https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf111/?group=gendispatch&short=&item=1)
[Notes](https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-111-gendispatch)
[Jabber](xmpp:gendispatch@jabber.ietf.org?join)

GENDISPATCH Meeting
----------------

### Status and Agenda Bash - Chairs (5 min)

Note well was noted well.
The GENDISPATCH process was reviewed. No work is done on items, just next steps
for an item.

[Slides](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-111-gendispatch-gendispatch-ietf111-chair-slides/)

Lars Eggert - we are looking for more sergeants at arms for the IETF list. See
https://github.com/ietf/saa Alexander M - what is the different between
Gendispatch and Dispatch? Gen is more policy and Dispatch is for networking.

### Definition of new tags for relations between RFCs (20 min)
Presenter: Suresh Krishnan
[draft-kuehlewind-update-tag](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/)
[Messages](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/SiuFdVT9abeeA57ookKmYuqATlM/)
[Slides](https://www.ietf.org/staging/slides-111-gendispatch-update-tags-final-ss1407.pdf)

Suresh K and Mirja presented slides describing three new tags to replace
Updates, and a possible experiment to try them.

John Klensin said if we do it at all, it'll be hard to go back. Could
supplement Updates rather than replace it.  Doubt that the sampled set of
technical RFCs was typical, doesn't address issue of integrating changes and
making it clear what changes what, need to think more broadly. His
recommendation was to do more work on it.

Robert Sparks: they're trying to help people figure out what they need to read.

Barry Leiba: this came from IESG questions about what does Updates mean. Hope
that this can go through with an AD sponsored document and not a working group.

Mark Nottingham: the metadata is confusing, but adding more could be more
confusing. The IETF stream can't create metadata since these tags are in the
XML of the documents in all streams.  IETF shouldn't make consensus about
metadata, so it shouldn't go a WG (AD-sponsored would be difficult). Suggests
to pass it to RFC Editor world. Mirja thinks other streams could opt in, Mark
says it's a publishing issue.

Robert Sparks: +1 to Mark's concern. Defining tags and writing software to use
them is larger than the IETF stream.  Not clear how they would be displayed and
used. See Also likely to become a kitchen sink (is it just another name for
References?) Could make Extends automatic from IANA, Updates turns into Amends,
drop See Also  Mirja: See Also can be added as a forward pointer.

Eliot Lear: My suggestion is that a mailing list be formed and that the draft
continue to be developed. All who are interested can get in there, and in the
meantime we can hope that the new RFC process will come to conclusion soonish.

Jabber suggests this should definitely not be AD-sponsored, and this discussion
shows that.

Robert Wilton: metadata is helpful, could help IESG decide what the tags mean. 
Agree need to specify what the updates actually are. Could we change the
metadata later than when RFC is published?  Suggest email list to discuss and
refine.

Lars Eggert: what would the experiment be? Don't see how we could do an
experiment. Mirja: use old and new in parallel.

Chairs: dispatch recommendation is to create a new mailing list to continue
discussion and work on this draft, and then putting the draft through the new
RFC process is a possibility, when it is finished.

### IETF Discussion List Charter (30 min)
Presenter: Lars Eggert
[draft-eggert-bcp45bis](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-bcp45bis/)
[Messages](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/OOVA7RTgPXfg1TzFsmt4ImH4aZk/)
[Slides](https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-gendispatch-draft-eggert-bcp45bis-03-slides-00.pdf)

Lars presented as individual, proposed changes to BCP 45.  Propose minimal
update to recognize the last-call and admin-discuss lists, and expand
Sergeant-at-Arms description.

Eliot Lear: can we improve communication practices on the ietf list, e.g. what
has driven people away.  Dispatch AD sponsored but also consider the other
conversation. Lars: I agree, we need broader discussion about communication.
This document is much smaller, close the loop on those small topics.

MNot: AD sponsor, reasonble and incremental cleanup.  Pessimistic about
progress on the larger issue, ask IESG, unlikely to make progress via a mailing
list. Fine for Lars to hold the pen. Lars: don't think IESG proposal will work,
prefer proposals from the community, but that is another topic

JCK: draft is fine, AD sponsor is fine.  IESG should not try to run bigger
topic.

PHB: should have updated spec when the experiment finished, AD sponsored now is
fine. For bigger topic, expand SHMOO to how do we work in an all virtual world,
much bigger than one mailing list.

Lucy Lynch: AD sponsored OK, doc is a good start. List described in different
ways in different places such as IETF web site, need to address policy
question. Lars: fair point, will try to fix w/ Greg Wood. SHMOO has focus on
meetings, not right place for this.

### GENDISPATCH updates (20 min)
Presenter: Kirsty Paine
[Slides](https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-gendispatch-gendispatch-ietf-111-review-slides-00.pdf)

Kirsty presented meta-slides.  Was chartered in Sep/Oct 2019, now time for
review of efficacy.  Keep it, kill it, change it?

Joel Halpern: We have no way to deal with complex process issues, Gendispatch
isn't it.

Robert Wilton: for small things, AD sponsored OK for small docs, WG for one doc
too heavyweight, this WG or another to handle in between? Adrian Farrell: is
the problem that it's too hard to start a WG?

PHB: set up standing WGs that can schedule discussion, have chair to move work
forward.  Gendispatch filters ideas, often modify proposals on the way through,
it's the on-ramp for the IETF. Jabber: WGs have charters and can publish docs

Eliot Lear: +1 Joel, not adequate for big topics

JCK: do we need another POISED style comprehensive review?

Robert Wilton: process is hard to understand particularly for newcomers, could
we streamline them.

Dominique Lazanski: should GENDISPATCH take on other items to see if it can
have other outcomes? Seems good place to collect potential issues.

Jon Peterson: if there's a need for a new process wg in gen area, let's see a
proposal here in gendispatch to scope it and see if ppl want to do it

Lars: these things are hard to dispatch, group is useful to get reactions and
comments to process ideas, if not here somewhere

### Chairs summary
 * Definition of new tags for relations between RFCs: dispatch recommendation
 is to create a new mailing list to continue discussion and work on this draft,
 and then putting the draft through the new RFC process is a possibility, when
 it is finished. * BCP 45: AD sponored for this specific document is fine,
 Robert Wilton offered. Bigger question has to be addressed somewhere else *
 Review says GENDISPATCH is still useful, some improvements could be made to
 expand its function to include larger process change and more options for
 gendispatch recommendations, but the chairs will get more views on-list,
 discuss offline and revisit.

### AOB

Lars: we've had discussions about hybrid meetings, where to discuss?
Manycouches list most likely, not here.