Nearly identical hat choices on the second row in both DNSOPs and Gendispatch! :-)
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:30:16.000Z"}, {"author": "Carsten Bormann", "text": "meetecho: speaker please
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:33:22.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Isn't the experimental question often \"Does anyone want this\"?
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:35:54.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "would be interesting to see the list of experiments mentioned in pg 3
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:36:32.000Z"}, {"author": "Chris Lemmons", "text": "Often, I'd usually say, \"Do at least two people who want to interoperate want this?\" :)
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:36:41.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "and many BigCo's just run their experiment and then come to the ietf.
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:36:54.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "but pg5 ... I feel seen :)
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:37:16.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "I feel like we did dispatch this work and we now have the outcome
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:37:34.000Z"}, {"author": "Sean Turner", "text": "+1 to ekr
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:37:49.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Like normally, you get a mailing list, you don't get critical mass, and that's it
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:39:12.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "+1 Barry, the wiki idea seems solid
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:39:54.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Ounsworth", "text": "Barry's not wearing his hat!
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:40:00.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Not the same thing as \"Barry has no hats\"
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:40:18.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "I wish it were a BCP, but I don't think that's going to get consensus.
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:40:35.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "So wiki is fine.
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:40:43.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "This seems like it would be very hard to get consensus on. Or at least expensive enough that it isn't worthwhile.
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:41:01.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "+1 Jonathan
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:41:21.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Zing!
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:42:10.000Z"}, {"author": "Kathleen Moriarty", "text": "Or you are running an experiment for some time period and it's helpful to have the draft. HTTPAuth (2018) wrapped up a series of experimental HTTPAuthentication protocols. Each had at least 1 implementation to prove it out as new methods were needed. SCRAM and HOBA were examples. 2 is the bar for standard.
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:44:02.000Z"}, {"author": "Kathleen Moriarty", "text": "Sometimes there is a need for experimental
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:44:54.000Z"}, {"author": "Carsten Bormann", "text": "+1 Colin
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:45:05.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Ounsworth", "text": "The difference between \"The authors want to describe an experiment they are running\" vs \"The WG doesn't feel that the thing is mature enough to call it a Standard\".
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:45:27.000Z"}, {"author": "Jonathan Lennox", "text": "Mature enough, or the right direction to go, or known safe enough, or any number of other things.
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:46:08.000Z"}, {"author": "Kathleen Moriarty", "text": "@Mike, yes, but it could also be that something is needed in a space and we're experimenting to see if anything sticks
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:46:19.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "I thnk the /dev/null dispatch outcome is likely correct here - the text of the draft is too close to normative that an RFC would be used to block things the community wants; the same would be true of web/wiki text, though to a lesser extent
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:46:26.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "I would be perfectly happy to have just Standards Track RFCs, but if we're gonna do that, then that's a different thing
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:46:56.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "I assume I don't need to consume audio bits for that to count as an opinion:-)
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:47:12.000Z"}, {"author": "Lucas Pardue", "text": "I could live with the advice on a wiki like \"if there is an intent for an experimental document to switch to, or generate data for a new, standards track document, what is the exit criteria? Assuming you might get run over by a bus, is there clear documentation of what was trying to be achieved and how success could be measured\"
\nan apporpriate response to that from an author could be don't care
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:47:22.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "I want an IETF doc classification for \"this is an idea, the protocol spec isn't stable yet and may change\". It looks like that isn't experimental and isn't what PS means either ...
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:47:27.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Stephen Farrell said:
\n\n\nI assume I don't need to consume audio bits for that to count as an opinion:-)
\n
You probab;y should, because I'm not sure people read the list
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:47:30.000Z"}, {"author": "Ben S", "text": "Mike Ounsworth said:
\n\n\nThe difference between \"The authors want to describe an experiment they are running\" vs \"The WG doesn't feel that the thing is mature enough to call it a Standard\".
\n
IMO these are both potentially useful things, but are also quite different and lumping them both under the \"experimental\" heading feels suboptimal. So maybe there's something broader here about first deciding \"what experimental means\", rather than codifying it right now
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:47:36.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Eric Rescorla said:
\n\n\nStephen Farrell said:
\n\n\nI assume I don't need to consume audio bits for that to count as an opinion:-)
\nYou probab;y should, because I'm not sure people read the list
\n
Or rather read the chat.
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:48:03.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "all of this is premised on anyone paying attention to any letters other than \"RFC\", which is process nerd fantasy
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:48:57.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Richard Barnes said:
\n\n\nall of this is premised on anyone paying attention to any letters other than \"RFC\", which is process nerd fantasy
\n
Facts
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:49:29.000Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "people don't, corporations evaluating customer requests do in my experience (\"we aren't implementing that in product, it's just an experiment\")
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:50:19.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "I agree that the IETF could self-limit its own use of Experimental.
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:50:26.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "i mean RFC 6962 deployed to billions of endpoints, despite being experimental
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:50:36.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Richard Barnes said:
\n\n\ni mean RFC 6962 deployed to billions of endpoints, despite being experimental
\n
So, a successful experiment!
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:50:51.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "actually no, everyone hates it
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:51:11.000Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "+1 to Lars. Unclear we have a real problem that needs solving here
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:51:15.000Z"}, {"author": "Sean Turner", "text": ":rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:51:18.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Ounsworth", "text": "Richard Barnes said:
\n\n\nactually no, everyone hates it
\n
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/plants
\n?
:seedling:]
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:51:59.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "@Mike Ounsworth why do you think PLANTS exists?
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:52:19.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "people like the idea, they hate the API
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:52:26.000Z"}, {"author": "Sean Turner", "text": "I thought it was for the plant puns
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:52:41.000Z"}, {"author": "Brian Carpenter", "text": "yes, we have no consensus, we have no consensus today...
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:52:57.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "Re 6962: \"everyone hates it\" But when it came up for revision nobody stepped up to comment/review/implement and so we have 9162 as 6962bis and is another experiment.
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:54:42.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Richard Barnes said:
\n\n\nall of this is premised on anyone paying attention to any letters other than \"RFC\", which is process nerd fantasy
\n
The IESG tends to pay attention to things labeled BCP.
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:55:29.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Ounsworth", "text": "@Rich Salz I mean, \"Nobody wants to work on this\" is what happens when things are unpopular.
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:55:54.000Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "There's a difference between \"no one wants to work on the code\" and \"no one wants to work on the specs\"
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:56:31.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "@David in theory at the IETF there's very little gap between the two; we're not ISO :)
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:57:07.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "The gap between theory and practice is larger in practice than in theory.
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:57:28.000Z"}, {"author": "Ketan Talaulikar", "text": "FWIW, on the experimental thing, I've observed the IESG (of 2025) has been asking the question - why experimental?
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:57:30.000Z"}, {"author": "Lucas Pardue", "text": "this I-D will self destruct
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:57:42.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:59:10.000Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "I am in general keen not to move too fast such that I become reactive to the moment not the trendline, but that said, we appear to be abysmally slow at reflecting fast change in the game plan out there e.g. AI and code-first
", "time": "2026-03-19T08:59:36.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Are process BCPs more like the pirate's code?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:00:14.000Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "@martin surely you mean ARRRR process BCPs..
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:00:31.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Martin Thomson said:
\n\n\nAre process BCPs more like the pirate's code?
\n
That they're more like guidelines or that you have to be a pirate for them to apply?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:00:42.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "I don't care too much (and like anachronisms a bit); I don't have energy to work on that and don't think procon should be re-chartered fot it
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:00:42.000Z"}, {"author": "Orie Steele", "text": "@George as you\u2019ve seen, since we waited long enough the AI has solved the code.-first problem.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:00:53.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "I note the slides are much more concrete than the text in the I-D
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:02:48.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "+1 Leslie
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:03:10.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "I tend to think that Procon can recharter to take this after they push out the current work.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:03:38.000Z"}, {"author": "Sean Turner", "text": "+1 to MT
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:03:51.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "@MT: take all this?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:03:54.000Z"}, {"author": "Jonathan Lennox", "text": "+1 Martin. Dispatch to Procon in the future.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:04:02.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Yep: Dispatch to procon after 2418bis and 2026bis ship.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:04:02.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Yes, take all of this to discuss. They might not decide to make the suggested changes. That's on the WG
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:04:16.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "FWIW, I agree with Leslie's statement. Maybe later. And there's many things to address, if we do more then let's prioritize the list.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:04:17.000Z"}, {"author": "Jonathan Lennox", "text": "Stephen: Dispatch to future Procon to make the decision as to which of these to take.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:04:21.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Some of these are sticky. The PS/FS thing seems to be a challenging one. I know that draft expiry is (though it shouldn't be).
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:05:11.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "so brian's list would be discussed during re-chartering? or procon could decide to try fix anything it dislikes?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:05:15.000Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Campling", "text": "+1 dispatch to Procon II
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:05:37.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "Stephen: the community should discuss what is the right set of things to fix.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:05:42.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Stephen Farrell said:
\n\n\nso brian's list would be discussed during re-chartering? or procon could decide to try fix anything it dislikes?
\n
Setting a scope can be deferred. But I think that it is important to scope things down at the time that the rechartering is up.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:05:57.000Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "+1 dispatch to PROCON once the current docs are done
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:06:08.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Maybe Procon can do a \"fixes/problems gathering\" phase ahead of a rechartering.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:06:43.000Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "I do think it should be process v4 personally, but that's a conversation for PROCON...
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:06:45.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "I'd not object to procon re-chartering considering which of topics to address (while still liking a bit of oddity in our processes:-)
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:07:00.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "I think there will be sufficient pushback on each and every fix that it will limit the changes in the end, but I agree, better to do that at re-charter time.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:07:08.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "Internet Process V3, now with NAT333!
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:07:13.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "but we'd probably invent some new oddities while trying to fix these anyway:-)
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:07:59.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "I don't think that it would be helpful to have a very broad scope on the process. I'd advocate for collecting a set of bugfixes, not rearchitecture. Save the rearchitecture for the phase after that.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:08:14.000Z"}, {"author": "Sean Turner", "text": "Let's keep the limited energy we have for process stuff focused on getting the current crop done.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:08:19.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Ounsworth", "text": "Stephen Farrell said:
\n\n\nbut we'd probably invent some new oddities while trying to fix these anyway:-)
\n
I believe that's called \"progress\" ?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:08:21.000Z"}, {"author": "John Klensin", "text": "A mailing list would work. I was just thinking about a slightly more focuised process
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:09:26.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "+1 Martin
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:09:40.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "process 3.1
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:09:43.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "+1 to Martin. If we do this, constrain to bug fixes. But after the current PROCON work.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:09:45.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "I agree with MT we should keep the aperture narrow
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:09:56.000Z"}, {"author": "Brian Carpenter", "text": "+1 to John
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:10:04.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "I think 1-step might end up resulting in a re-architecture discussion anyway. For the rest, we're probably OK to have them in the \"small fixes\" category.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:10:31.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "Is getting rid of the split between PS vs STD a bugfix?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:10:40.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "I don't think that PS -> STD collapse is small enough to fit, to be clear. I do like most of the other things Brian suggests.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:11:12.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "no
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:11:12.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Aligning documentation with practice is a possible guiding principle.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:11:28.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "I mean, no it's not a bugfix
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:11:30.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "But we don't actually follow the PS -> STD process, in that pretty much nobody ever bothers doing this.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:11:54.000Z"}, {"author": "John Klensin", "text": "DO we want a mailing list for this or c;lutter tje Procon and/or IETF lists?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:12:01.000Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "Just use the procon list
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:12:14.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Vigoureux", "text": "or use gendispatch?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:12:23.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "I think that we can use Procon for this and simply ask that people restrain themselves until Procon has space.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:12:28.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "The identity or name o the WG to address additional things is somewhat immaterial. The key questions are rather ensuring we don't overspend energy on process. And that we clearly prioritize what is done among the many things that could be done, including deciding on what level surgery we can afford (I vote for low level of surgery).
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:12:35.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "Procon++ list ;-)
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:12:43.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "+1 David. Use procon (when the chairs allow such discussion).
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:12:43.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "I say use procon mailing.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:12:53.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Yes, having the chairs manage topics seems sensible.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:13:06.000Z"}, {"author": "Brian Carpenter", "text": "Yes, I think the PS/STD change is smaller than it appears at first sight. John's point about STD _numbers_ is bigger
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:13:11.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "If WG chairs think it is a distraction, we can recalibrate.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:13:34.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "While I appreciate Brian's optimism, I'm not convinced we can keep it small.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:13:45.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "Robert Wilton said:
\n\n\nBut we don't actually follow the PS -> STD process, in that pretty much nobody ever bothers doing this.
\n
Right. It can involve re-litigating the entire document. AD's can open DISCUSSes on stuff which is long since water under the bridge. The process should be more streamlined.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:13:53.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "something something GDPR something
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:14:37.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "Jay also noted that there was an aspect to the current situation where the rules we had to follow were opaque - would we want a requiremnt that aims to avoid that situation too?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:15:07.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "So, all IETF meeting are moving online? ;-)
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:15:14.000Z"}, {"author": "Antoine Fressancourt", "text": "+1 Robert
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:15:26.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Ounsworth", "text": "My very general feedback to EKR's presentation is that these are very valid points, but instead of \"Venue MUST NOT...\", it should be \"Venue MUST be transparent about several months in advance so that people can make appropriate travel decisions\".
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:15:34.000Z"}, {"author": "Brian Carpenter", "text": "I have a WG acronym designed: Busy Internet Keyboard Endless Special Heated Eclectic Discussions
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:15:54.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "I.e., should these constraints be a set of SHOULDs rather than MUSTs?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:16:01.000Z"}, {"author": "John Klensin", "text": "Oddly, I think the STD change is my smaller. As I think I said on-list, we have PS documents that, while there are implementations, don't represent significant deployed experence and evaluation, which Internet Standards supposedly requires. Whether we want to make a change is a separate question, but I think requires our figuring out what we want.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:16:13.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "Re \"rules are opaque\". Not quite. We were told what we had to do. We couldn't see the rull regulation, which might have things like rationale, etc., that they don't want to share. Again, we were told what we had to do.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:16:27.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "All IETF meetings move online, and most participants are not permitted to participate because their home and/or corporate networks don't meet these requirements?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:16:33.000Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "I said my piece in emails and as a newb in the role I am reluctant to skew sense of importance by .. repeating here.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:16:43.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Ounsworth", "text": "Brian Carpenter said:
\n\n\nI have a WG acronym designed: Busy Internet Keyboard Endless Special Heated Eclectic Discussions
\n
I have New Business for the WG :slight_smile:
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:17:00.000Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "but I would like to say I value EKR making this position to the record, because it's valuable to have positions taken we can talk to. So thank you.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:17:14.000Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "\n\nAgain, we were told what we had to do.
\n
Details about the required auth changed days before the event started though, which I think is what \"opaque\" is describing
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:17:23.000Z"}, {"author": "Antoine Fressancourt", "text": "What is going to happen if, to join the meeting venue, we have to give up all sort of online privacy by having to provide all our social network, email or real time communication identifiers and pseudonyms at the border? (see https://www.arc-legal.es/en/esta-changes-explained-us-to-require-social-media-accounts-and-expanded-personal-data/)
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:17:45.000Z"}, {"author": "Jay Daley", "text": "What Rich says - knowing the regulations would not have affected our compliance with the instructions given to us
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:17:55.000Z"}, {"author": "Jason Livingood", "text": "I am a little skeptical of a draft to deal with late breaking changes - unless it says 'the IETF will use their best judgement' (thinking of issues the day before a meeting or even during)
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:17:58.000Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "\"event is no longer viable\" incurs massive cost in the community with no recourse.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:17:59.000Z"}, {"author": "Sean Turner", "text": "@George thanks for all the clarifications - I think I got your point from he right perspective.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:18:03.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "Antoine Fressancourt said:
\n\n\nWhat is going to happen if, to join the meeting venue, we have to give up all sort of online privacy by having to provide all our social network, email or real time communication identifiers and pseudonyms at the border? (see https://www.arc-legal.es/en/esta-changes-explained-us-to-require-social-media-accounts-and-expanded-personal-data/)
\n
Or, just to enter the country.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:18:05.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "Presumably having a policy of this character could change what contracts are written, whic hcould improve the situation with late-breaking changes
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:18:19.000Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "never mind the cost to the entity, the community cost in non-recoverables is just huge.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:18:23.000Z"}, {"author": "Antoine Fressancourt", "text": "I meant \"to enter the country\"
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:18:29.000Z"}, {"author": "Kathleen Moriarty", "text": "The venue may need to meet requirements in the selection process, but late breaking is difficult.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:18:36.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "we're joining the general queue now right?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:18:45.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "@Richard, Andrew has just answered. Contract is with venue not the country.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:19:08.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "We have control over these things via choosing venues accordingly.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:19:09.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "The MUSTs are for the LLC, not for the other end of the contract.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:19:13.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "Document to address \"late breaking changes\" = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9137/
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:19:14.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "@Robert Wilton you can write contracts such that if regulations change to prevent performance, the contract is broken
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:19:29.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Ounsworth", "text": "Jay Daley said:
\n\n\nWhat Rich says - knowing the regulations would not have affected our compliance with the instructions given to us
\n
Right. I'm proposing to let people make their own decisions about whether to attend in-person or not ... which does not place any requirements on the venue except to be transparent in advance.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:19:52.000Z"}, {"author": "Jay Daley", "text": "Actually Richard that is much harder than you think because you cannot insure against that
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:19:56.000Z"}, {"author": "Jason Livingood", "text": "w/r/t contracts - important to understand different regions have approaches to what is / is not in contracts that differs from US and US-like legal systems.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:20:19.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "@Richard, But that doesn't help everyone who has booked hotels, etc.
\nI think that we should set out goals/desires, but not make them hard requirements.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:20:21.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "Robert Wilton said:
\n\n\n@Richard, Andrew has just answered. Contract is with venue not the country.
\n
Not important. The venue either can provide us with an actual, written, regulation, or they can't. I have no belief the hotel had anything to do with this. They did what they were told.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:20:23.000Z"}, {"author": "John Klensin", "text": "Are we dispatching this or discussing content?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:21:07.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "@Jonathan Lennox all this group does is dispatch
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:21:44.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "AD sponsor for anonymous-network. I would change the file name slightly though.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:22:01.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "er, @John Klensin
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:22:04.000Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Campling", "text": "Don't dispatch as written
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:22:12.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "+100 what Stephen said.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:22:17.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "AD sponsorship is good. This is important as a restatement of shared principles of the IETF.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:22:46.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "Is AD-sponsor a \"strong enough\" consensus ?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:22:54.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Michael Richardson said:
\n\n\nAD sponsor for anonymous-network. I would change the file name slightly though.
\n
draft-rescorla-pirates-code
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:22:54.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "i find it surprising that \"people should be able to use normal security technologies\" is controversial
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:23:03.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Let's please stick to the dispatch questions...
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:23:04.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Ounsworth", "text": "I'm not convinced that AD sponsorship would get this document broad community review? Ultimately, this is a \"How strongly does the community feel about openness of the on-site network\" opinion piece.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:23:25.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "@Rich Salz AD-sponsored still gets IETF LC / consensus
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:23:27.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "I know. See MikeO's comment; he said it better.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:23:49.000Z"}, {"author": "Adrian Farrel", "text": "IETF LC is fine, but where does the development work happen?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:23:50.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Unfortunately, AD sponsorship means that we need to be comfortable with the substance, so DISPATCH always has to slide into discussing the material at least a little.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:23:54.000Z"}, {"author": "Jay Daley", "text": "@Richard \"people should be able to use normal security technologies\u201d is already in the current BCP with the \u201cunfiltered\u201d requirement
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:24:18.000Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Campling", "text": "I think there is greater value in going to more diverse places than there is in having an overly-restrictive network policy. Let's just mandate transparency and leave it there.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:24:34.000Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "In the dispatch spirit there is clearly more to be said and so the document needs a home to be discussed in
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:24:41.000Z"}, {"author": "Orie Steele", "text": "Yep, if we think it\u2019s going to take a bunch of content adjustments, that\u2019s a sign that AD sponsorship is probably \u2026 painful at best.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:24:44.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Andrew Campling said:
\n\n\nI think there is greater value in going to more diverse places than there is in having an overly-restrictive network policy. Let's just mandate transparency and leave it there.
\n
Network transparency?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:24:52.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "Martin Thomson said:
\n\n\nUnfortunately, AD sponsorship means that we need to be comfortable with the substance, so DISPATCH always has to slide into discussing the material at least a little.
\n
Then we have to re-open mtgvenue?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:25:02.000Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "@martin > Then we have to re-open mtgvenue?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:25:20.000Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "is that such a bad choice? does it have downsides I dont understand?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:25:32.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Yes, let's figure out a list (we could re-use the old mtgvenue list), but after that AD sponsored is fine if Roman is willing. After discussion is concluded, the product is pretty small and consise.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:25:33.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "good man Tommy!
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:25:48.000Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Campling", "text": "@Martin Thompson transparency about applicable local policies that apply to the network
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:25:50.000Z"}, {"author": "Kathleen Moriarty", "text": "Normal doesn't work - you have to point to specific requirements as normal is interpreted differently within different sets of cultural norms.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:25:56.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "I'm happy to roll with whatever the sense of the group is
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:26:09.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "RFC9712 was made on mtgvenue ML and with genarea meetings.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:26:09.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "I'd rather Roman sponsor, though happy to hear that Tommy J is willing.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:26:11.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "@michael...son I don't see that as necessary for this sort of change.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:26:14.000Z"}, {"author": "Adrian Farrel", "text": "@Kathleen: My norms are normal, your norms are not normal
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:26:28.000Z"}, {"author": "Kathleen Moriarty", "text": ":-)
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:26:38.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "@Tommy Jensen i would distinguish this draft from experiments in that this draft is focused on things that IETF participants need to get work done
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:26:49.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "As you may have heard, i'm keen on making requirements oriented around IETF effectiveness
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:27:08.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "The authentication requirement is an important one. That is not incompatible with access control.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:27:08.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "As far as outcome, I think there are pieces that belong in the MUST section of 9712 and others that belong in the SHOULD section.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:27:32.000Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "@richard That's perfectly fine. I don't have a strong opinion, I just wanted to clarify author intention of scope for dispatch question
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:27:42.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "we can discuss and then an AD can sponsor though - what's wrong with that?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:28:13.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Establishing that the US is worse doesn't really read on this question.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:28:35.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Martin Thomson said:
\n\n\nEstablishing that the US is worse doesn't really read on this question.
\n
I take the US's requirements to be fitting into the question about visas.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:29:07.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Exactly. Orthogonal.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:29:17.000Z"}, {"author": "Sean Turner", "text": "+1 to Lars
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:29:20.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Eric Rescorla said:
\n\n\nMartin Thomson said:
\n\n\nEstablishing that the US is worse doesn't really read on this question.
\nI take the US's requirements to be fitting into the question about visas.
\n
Rather than about the network
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:29:21.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "the question here is whether the IESG/LLC should feel free to choose venuse where it is difficult for people to safely get work done
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:29:26.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "+1 Lars
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:29:44.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Ounsworth", "text": "+1 to Lars.
\n+1 to find-a-discussion-home, then Roman-sponsored.
good man Roman too!
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:29:51.000Z"}, {"author": "Adrian Farrel", "text": "@Richard: Is there a distinction between \"IETF work\" and \"corporate work\"?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:30:12.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "mtgvenue list exists, use that
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:30:14.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Also, that a given country has issues on one criterion doesn't invalidate the requirement on another axis. Yes, it is hard to find a good venue that meets all the requirements, but they do exist in many parts of the world.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:30:29.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "@Adrian Farrel aren't most attendees corporate-sponsored?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:30:33.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "i don't think there's a practical difference for many attendees
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:30:45.000Z"}, {"author": "Adrian Farrel", "text": "Yes, but they come to the IETF to do IETF work
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:30:49.000Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "Hearing the scope narrower than non-security mechanisms/protocols and not including other entry requirements makes me really confident this is quickly and productively actionable work
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:30:55.000Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "Adrian Farrel said:
\n\n\nYes, but they come to the IETF to do IETF work
\n
... probably using their corporate laptop
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:31:13.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "This is not big enough to have on a meeting agenda.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:31:14.000Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "(^no hats)
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:31:17.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Thank you for your time, everypne
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:33:21.000Z"}, {"author": "Adrian Farrel", "text": "Is my laptop more at risk on the network or as I pass through imigration?
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:33:34.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "I think that these are probably MUST-level requirements, though I could live with SHOULD.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:33:36.000Z"}, {"author": "Jason Livingood", "text": ":call_me:
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:33:44.000Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "I thought the summary was more positive than that
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:33:45.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Discuss on mtgvenue, hope for AD sponsorship.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:34:37.000Z"}, {"author": "Orie Steele", "text": "Yup what MT siad
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:34:46.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "I think when the gendispatch chairs and AD review the discussion, they will see that it is clearer than thought at the mic.
", "time": "2026-03-19T09:34:54.000Z"}]