PROCON WG meeting at IETF-124

Administrative

• Note well

• Minute taker

  • Pete Resnick foolishly volunteers and the chairs are deeply
    grateful

• Agenda bash

  • Leslie does a review of charter
    • New process changes are out of scope

Working Group Documents [50 min]

The Internet Standards Process (Rich Salz)

The draft is at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-procon-2026bis/

Most recent changes are at
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-procon-2026bis-00&url2=draft-ietf-procon-2026bis-01&difftype=--html,
changes from IETF-123 are at
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-rsalz-2026bis-13&url2=draft-ietf-procon-2026bis-01&difftype=--html,
and changes wrt. the original RFC are at:
https://arkko.com/ietf/procon/draft-ietf-procon-2026bis-01-from-rfc2026.diff.html

• Rich reviews changes since IETF 123
• Open issues: Editorial - No comments

• Open issues: #37, #28, #26

  • #26 - Sounds like a new feature, out of charter, but let's flag
    for the future (though we have some history that this didn't
    work in the past).
  • #37 - Will take quite a few edits, new text coming. This is not
    from a formal change, but is a "reality alignment" change.
    Suggestion that we could delete much/all of this text because
    it's operational, not part of process. Leave in the principles,
    but don't cite particular technology. Quite a bit of support for
    that.

• Open issues: #44, #43, #42

  • Note that all experimental/informational in IETF are now
    consensus documents
  • Don't leave out point that other streams exist
  • #42: Would be good to decide whether IAB-stream BCPs are just
    historical artifacts or are OK. Question on whether future BCPs
    should be on the IAB stream at all.
  • #44: Maybe should be marked as editorial

• Open issues: Appeals

  • #47: Will await proposed text before deciding
  • #24: Discussion about whether the text needs adjusting to
    reflect reality, or whether the text is sufficient and overly
    interpreting it as meaning that all discussions must be public.
    Rich thinks he has a plan.

IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures (David Schinazi)

The draft is at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-procon-2418bis/

Most recent changes are at
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-procon-2418bis-00&url2=draft-ietf-procon-2418bis-01&difftype=--html,
changes from IETF-123 are at
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-rsalz-2418bis-07&url2=draft-ietf-procon-2418bis-01&difftype=--html,
and changes wrt. the original RFC are at:
https://arkko.com/ietf/procon/draft-ietf-procon-2418bis-01-from-rfc2418.diff.html

• David reviews history of document

  • #26 - Concern that removal of milestones might lead to
    unproductive groups to drag on. It is optional and ADs should be
    diligent. Might want to encourage IESG to write some guidance
    down. Some of this is still covered in the document. Need to
    confirm what is currently in the document.

• Open Issue: #24 Adoption Calls - Some suggestion that we mention it
  as an optional process with minimal details. One suggestion that
  since it's not required, we could say that if you adopt a
  document, it should be a formal step. No solid conclusion.

• Open Issue: #27 Virtual BoFs - Suggestion that we remove the exact
  numbers, but define the concepts without over-specifying. Could also
  note that BoFs are not the only way WGs get formed. Other point that
  the limit is important, but maybe 2 is not the right number. David
  will provide text that includes virtual BoFs and leaves the limit,
  but discussion will continue.
• Open Issue: #18 Disruptive Behavior - We should probably reduce the
  text with some sort of reference to modpod. David will propose text.
• Open Issue: #20 WG Facilitator - Suggestion to leave it in since it
  might interact with modpod. Some concern for confusion. Discussion
  will be taken to the list.
• Open Issue: #21 Design Teams - Is changing this out of charter?
  David will propose text so we can decide.

Other work [20min]

IETF Chair delegation

First a review of the draft including recent changes (Lars Eggert):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-ietf-chair-may-delegate :

Then, a discussion of proposals for IETF Chair delegation frameworks:

• Lars reviews document and recent changes
• Open Issue: Who can the Chair delegate to? Question as to whether
  IAB Chair can be either a delegate or an emergency stand-in.
  Suggestion that it might be different for different roles. Radical
  suggestion that separating out role of IESG Chair from rest of IETF
  Chair, or otherwise re-think the IETF Chair job, rather than simply
  allowing delegation. That might require recharter. Much discussion
  about whether re-charter discussion should come first or adoption
  should come first. No conclusion.