wow, that room is empty.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:00:17.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "enh, it's IETF meta-nerditry. small attendance not uncommon.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:00:46.000Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "We have TWO people in the room in Shibuya :-)
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:00:48.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "TWO WHOLE PEOPLE
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:01:12.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Of course other people are going to join me in\u00a0https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-125-procon\u00a0to help take a few notes, right?
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:01:37.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "Thank you Pete
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:01:52.000Z"}, {"author": "Glenn Deen", "text": "Lars - Don't get cross in Shibuya :)
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:03:06.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Pete Resnick said:
\n\n\nOf course other people are going to join me in\u00a0https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-125-procon\u00a0to help take a few notes, right?
\n
Negative, I did my part. https://ietfminutes.org/
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:03:23.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin D\u00fcrst", "text": "BTW, where exactly in Shibuya?
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:03:34.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "Shibuya Stream
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:03:53.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "Ekr: We will also use yours.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:04:33.000Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "Four people in Shibuya!
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:04:59.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Jari Arkko said:
\n\n\nEkr: We will also use yours.
\n
I'm trying to improve the transcripts but it's proving a bit harder than expected
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:05:04.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin D\u00fcrst", "text": "Where exactly in Shibuya Stream? (I'm about a hour away.)
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:05:50.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "Google office
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:06:11.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin D\u00fcrst", "text": "Colin Perkins said:
\n\n\nGoogle office
\n
Thanks!
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:06:40.000Z"}, {"author": "Jean Mahoney", "text": "\"RFC Publication Center\" --> \"RFC Production Center\"
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:06:40.000Z"}, {"author": "Jean Mahoney", "text": ":+1:
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:07:36.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Sparks", "text": "is it a nit on the slide that IAB-authored RFCs should say IAB-authord BCPs?
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:09:18.000Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "Not all IAB RFCs have IETF consensus. I thik / hope that all IAB BCPs had IETF consensus.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:11:21.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "The IAB is currently working on RFC4052bis/RFC4053bis. IESG/IAB are aware of this issue (and chatted about it yesterday).
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:11:56.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "I think there's a distinction between IAB-stream documents and documents the IAB submits to the IESG stream.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:12:09.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "My thesis is that the consensus process consists of more than just an IETF LC, but also requires a formal declaration of consensus
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:12:15.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "The IAB isn't bound by/to the IETF consensus process, but can certainly choose to submit a document to it.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:12:40.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Mike Bishop said:
\n\n\nThe IAB isn't bound by/to the IETF consensus process, but can certainly choose to submit a document to it.
\n
I agree.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:12:51.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "I've gotta +1 to ekr and Barry.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:13:00.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "The request is NOT all IAB RFCs, it is BCPs
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:13:35.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "I'm confused: why are we moving these to IETF stream rather than historic?
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:13:39.000Z"}, {"author": "Brian Carpenter", "text": "The ones in question WERE approved by the IESG
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:13:42.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "Indeed just BCPs. Good to check each and every one
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:13:46.000Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "https://rfc.fyi/?stream=iab&level=bcp
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:13:53.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "I am not convinced even the BCPs have IETF consensus.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:13:55.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "These were the BCPs sent to the IESG:
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:14:18.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "So +1 ekr, -1 Barry.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:14:19.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "2850: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc1601bis/history/
\n3172: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-arpa/history/
\n3552: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-sec-cons/history/
\n3677: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-isocbot/history/
\n4052: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-liaison-mgt/history/
\n4053: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-baker-liaison-statements/history/
\n4333: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-iesg-iaoc-selection/history/
So the slide created a discussion we didn't intend.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:14:26.000Z"}, {"author": "Brian Carpenter", "text": "The tracker history is quite clear for the BCPs
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:15:25.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "No worries; we got it.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:16:28.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "RFC 4052/4053 are currently being updated by the IAB, no?
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:17:40.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "Yes, RFC4052/4053 are being updated
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:18:01.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "Are the updates staying on the IAB stream?
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:18:16.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "No, they will be AD sponsored
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:18:26.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "... by me
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:18:47.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "Ah, okay\u2026.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:19:07.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Sparks", "text": "the remote people can hear david fine
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:21:02.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "I hear Paul just fine.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:21:04.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "er, David.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:21:10.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "I can hear David just fine :)
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:21:21.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "We progressed 8415 to 9915 (DHC), but the WG wasn't dormant..?..
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:26:19.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "I just posted a few comments to the list (worked on them on the plane but failed to finish it and hit send until now).
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:26:28.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Probably just editorial
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:26:42.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "I don't think the text was about active WGs like DHC
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:26:44.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "RMCAT went dormant for a couple of years, waiting to decide whether to close or progress the documents from experimental to proposed, if I remember correctly
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:27:03.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "What is or isn't normative?
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:27:30.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "Don't need 2119 keywords to be normative.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:27:33.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "It is an informative reference
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:27:55.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "RFC7282 was not the result of IETF Consensus.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:28:02.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Actually, I will abstain on this discussion.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:28:15.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "7282 is a useful thing to talk about, but I agree that maybe it does not need to be referenced in 2418bis.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:29:09.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "I do think this 51/99 text is normative
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:30:15.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "So if 99% of us want to reference 7282, but EKR does not, do we use 7282 to determine rough consensus, or do we use another process :-)
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:30:17.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "To be clear, I think we do let one dissenter stop things. I don't think we declare consensus for the 1%
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:30:52.000Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "The consensus at the time was that there was agrement that it was useful to publish 7282, but not that there was consensus of the content.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:31:50.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "\n", "time": "2026-03-16T06:31:53.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "Note: This document is quite consciously being put forward as
\n
\n Informational. It does not propose to change any IETF processes and
\n is therefore not a BCP. It is simply a collection of principles,
\n hopefully around which the IETF can come to (at least rough)
\n consensus.
EKR, 7282 says that sometimes that it's accurate that one dissenter should stop things. And sometimes we ignore that dissenter. And I've been through both.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:32:05.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "Is this future work, the WG charter says \"This WG will specify a RFC2026bis and RFC2418bis that will merge all documents which update these RFCs, and any associated verified or hold-for-update errata.\"
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:32:31.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "@EKR agree
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:32:31.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "I would like to know how we can explain what we actually do. Does someone have an idea beyond 7282?
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:33:22.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "WG adoption text looks good, David
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:33:48.000Z"}, {"author": "Jon Peterson", "text": "What we do is reach rough consensus as seen by the consensus takers. A
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:34:24.000Z"}, {"author": "Jon Peterson", "text": "Saying anything more normative is asking for troible
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:34:39.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "The \"100 against, 5 for\" section is explicitly about brigading. In the scenario described, I think that is accurate to what we do.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:34:47.000Z"}, {"author": "Leslie Daigle", "text": "Can Deirdre please log in to Meetecho for this session? (Or did I miss her in the participants list?) :-)
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:35:14.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "Witness, for example, the brigading which this working group observed a while back...:man_shrugging:
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:35:25.000Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "No, even individual I-Ds normally grant the rights to the IETF. I think the description of the meaning of WG Adoption gets the critical change control point.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:35:42.000Z"}, {"author": "Deirdre Connolly", "text": "now logged in
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:35:43.000Z"}, {"author": "Brian Carpenter", "text": "Change control is completely covered by the IPR BCPs and the Trust/IPMC legal stuff.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:36:05.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin D\u00fcrst", "text": "\"draft owned by an individual\": \"owned\" has some specific legal implications, so I think we should avoid the word.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:36:17.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "+1 to consensus decision
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:36:21.000Z"}, {"author": "Leslie Daigle", "text": "@deirdre -- thanks!
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:36:39.000Z"}, {"author": "Harald Alvestrand", "text": "Isn't the WG chair in charge of deciding if there's consensus for adoption?
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:37:04.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "I've seen many groups were adoption was very informal
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:37:23.000Z"}, {"author": "Brian Carpenter", "text": "draft-carpenter-draft-adoption is only 6 years old
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:37:53.000Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "For WGs that do conduct WG rough consensus call, I have considered that a blank slate is not sufficient, as the WG would have no idea what it is agreeing.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:38:29.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "The appeal response Ekr refers to says
\n\n", "time": "2026-03-16T06:38:30.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "However, as Section 2.2 of RFC 7221 highlights, \"adopting a document does not automatically mean that the working group has agreed to all of its content.\" The question being asked at adoption is whether the document represents a topic on which the working group wishes to work.\"
\n
That is, there's consensus to work on the topic, but not consensus on the content.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:38:47.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "If I recollect, THIS WG made strong claims a meeting or two ago that adoption is up to the chairs for historical reasons.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:38:58.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "So the appeal in question claimed that there was not consensus to adopt the document
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:39:07.000Z"}, {"author": "Brian Carpenter", "text": "@Mike B, that is not always understood by newcomers
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:39:16.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Sparks", "text": "My memory agrees with Roman's
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:39:32.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "It's about giving change control to the WG, rather than granting the IETF rights
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:40:10.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Part of the reason that this matters is whether an appeal that adoption did not have consensus is or is not in order.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:40:10.000Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "If, as I hear and agree, changes to an adopted document require WG agreement, then it seems to me that the content itself has to meet some bar as it is now harder to change.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:40:21.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "7221 is informational, not a BCP. The appeal was incorrect in claiming that 7221 is official process.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:40:49.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "+1 Cullen. That's part of why I don't like the first sentence.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:41:12.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "RFC 8789 requires there is consensus?
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:41:15.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "This matter was adjacent to the strong feedback at the Montreal meeting to IESG enabling tooling in the datatacker for consensus during the adoption phase
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:41:30.000Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "The historical cases I know of where it matters were cases where an editor tried to insist on content the WG did not agree with.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:42:12.000Z"}, {"author": "Harald Alvestrand", "text": "the practical way we work with WG I-Ds is that the editors make something that they think could be WG consensus, and the WG tells the editor whether he got it right or not - if not, the editor is responsible for fixing that in the next version.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:42:46.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "+1 Lars
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:42:49.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "Interesting way of phrasing it, Lars. +!
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:42:53.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "Lars has found a way to walk the fence...
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:43:05.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "+1 to both Lars and Martin. Sounds like we need a rewrite of this bit.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:43:28.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "I took my name out of the queue, but I think adoption is more important than people seem to think. Once it's adopted there is a presumption that it is being worked on by the IETF.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:43:53.000Z"}, {"author": "Harald Alvestrand", "text": "ie don't use the word \"owned\".
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:44:10.000Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "Conveniently the doc name also changes to draft-ietf-* so it IS actually a different doc
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:44:14.000Z"}, {"author": "Deirdre Connolly", "text": "++ekr
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:44:33.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Sparks", "text": "Lars - there's no requirement to rename the doc (at least so far)
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:45:01.000Z"}, {"author": "Paul Hoffman", "text": "The previous topic really pushes the envelope on what is done in the IETF because there are so many different ways that WGs do that.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:45:03.000Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "If we want to talk about adoption, maybe we can phrase it as adoption of a work item (rather than a document)
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:45:15.000Z"}, {"author": "Leslie Daigle", "text": "I think the work item adoption is key. The document still matters because there is an element of \"yes, we think this is a starting point for addressing the work item\"
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:45:57.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "Joel: Good practices in design teams do mean listing the other contributors, too, maybe in the contributors section
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:46:00.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "@Ekr, I think that's still part of the fine line. If there is a WG document, it means the WG is working on it, regardless of where the contents originated.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:46:02.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "Joel is right: design teams have not kept adequate records. This happened with RFC6550 (RPL). I think that this text should remain, and we need more discipline here.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:46:09.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "I agree that it may not have been done always
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:46:09.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Mike Bishop said:
\n\n\n@Ekr, I think that's still part of the fine line. If there is a WG document, it means the WG is working on it, regardless of where the contents originated.
\n
100% agree. I'm focused on whether there should be a higher bar, not on change control
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:46:30.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "This sounds new to me.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:46:33.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "I thought that closed membership meant \"people can't join\"
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:48:35.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "Some design teams in some WG do a good job. Some do not. What's missing is the forcing function towards WG chairs to force design teams. In the old, bad days, all work occurred over big-tech sponsored phone bridge, we had no recordings, and no easy way to do minutes. We NEED to have attendance records for the same IPR reasons we do blue sheets. But, we don't have to force them to publish who said what.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:49:17.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "I think a more narrow \"Who is on the design team\" question might be better
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:50:17.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": ". o O ( It's a business process patent involving DoFood() to solve design team challenges. )
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:52:38.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "2418 doesn't require the chairs to appoint design team members
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:53:25.000Z"}, {"author": "Brian Carpenter", "text": "2418: \"Design teams may range from an informal chat
\n between people in a hallway to a formal set of expert volunteers that
\n the WG chair or AD appoints\"
Agree with COlin. 2418 allows all sorts of design teams. That is the reality of how we work.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:54:03.000Z"}, {"author": "Lucas Pardue", "text": "I launder all my bad ideas over beer
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:54:52.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "Lucas Pardue said:
\n\n\nI launder all my bad ideas over beer
\n
I launder all my bad ideas by buying Lucas Beer.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:55:16.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Was Leslie speaking as chair or just as participant?
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:56:07.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "(For the record)
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:56:16.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "After this expansion by the mic line, I agree with the WG chairs on scope.
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:56:19.000Z"}, {"author": "Leslie Daigle", "text": "For the record -- as Chair
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:57:30.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Here's the current text:
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:58:05.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "It is often useful, and perhaps inevitable, for a sub-group of a
\n working group to develop a proposal to solve a particular problem.
\n Such a sub-group is called a design team. In order for a design team
\n to remain small and agile, it is acceptable to have closed membership
\n and private meetings. Design teams may range from an informal chat
\n between people in a hallway to a formal set of expert volunteers that
\n the WG chair or AD appoints to attack a controversial problem. The
\n output of a design team is always subject to approval, rejection or
\n modification by the WG as a whole.
(That is, from 2418)
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:58:32.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "I think Colin and I are on the same page
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:59:09.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "We should call informal groups some other thing
", "time": "2026-03-16T06:59:22.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin D\u00fcrst", "text": "The volume of people in the room (Pete, Jay, Barry) is generally very low. Maybe an adjustment is possible?
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:00:46.000Z"}, {"author": "Leslie Daigle", "text": "@meetecho is there a volume balance issue (see Martin's comment)
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:01:20.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "FWIW: To me, the new chair delegation looks both reasonable and within charter.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:02:28.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Sparks", "text": "Sigh. Mandatory complaint about use of color on slides that doesn't take colorblindness into account.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:04:10.000Z"}, {"author": "Lucas Pardue", "text": "serious question: is there limits to what a chair can delegate?
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:05:13.000Z"}, {"author": "Lorenzo Miniero", "text": "@Leslie Daigle if remote contributions are louder than what we get from the room, there may be a balance issue, yes. This is usually not an issue when we do our routine tests here. In general, speaking closer to the mics in the room helps
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:05:41.000Z"}, {"author": "Leslie Daigle", "text": "@lorenzo -- the in-room volume seems fine. Will anyway ask people to speak closer to the mic
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:06:28.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "Similarly serious answer: In the short term, I don't believe so. In the longer term, a chair who delegates excessively might find themselves no longer chair.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:06:37.000Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "It would we a nice tools team project to archive/copy every URL shared within an IETF forum. (Doesn't archive.org have an API for this?)
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:06:41.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "I thought the forums used are supposed to be archived by the IETF?
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:07:07.000Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "Yes, but not the contents of URLs shared in them IIRC
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:07:36.000Z"}, {"author": "Brian Carpenter", "text": "Email yes, but fungible fora (to coin a phrase) may be impractical
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:07:42.000Z"}, {"author": "Mirja K\u00fchlewind", "text": "Lucas Pardue said:
\n\n\nserious question: is there limits to what a chair can delegate?
\n
I think the one think you really can't delegate it calling consensus.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:08:12.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "@Lorenzo some overhearing of talking from the next room now. Didn't hear it before. In person only, I think.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:08:15.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "+1 Mirja
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:08:28.000Z"}, {"author": "Mirja K\u00fchlewind", "text": "Lucas Pardue said:
\n\n\nserious question: is there limits to what a chair can delegate?
\n
I think the one thing you can't delegate is calling consensus.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:08:37.000Z"}, {"author": "Lorenzo Miniero", "text": "@Jari Arkko ack, I'll notify the AV team: it may be bleeding from Shangri-La Ballroom 2 as the two rooms are right next to each other
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:09:11.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "+1 on only including blessed IETF fora
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:09:17.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "I think Deirdre has a good point; the key thing is about how we should deal with discussion which is not archivable. That includes conversations in airport security lines :-)... so I think that the key is that a summary has to get back the mailing list.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:09:39.000Z"}, {"author": "Lucas Pardue", "text": "I should probably go read up but I'd find it surprising if I (as chair) was allowed to delegate without informing the RAD
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:10:32.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "I've seen multiple WG with appointed technical advisors who forgot they had one. If it wasn't out-of-charter, I'd want to remove it entirely as a failed mechanism.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:11:48.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "Both Leslie and Barry's volume is good remote
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:11:49.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "BCP245 says \"public online IETF fora ... that the IETF or WGs have chosen to employ\"
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:12:01.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Sparks", "text": "Small note: new role names might be minted. Please try not to make it such that a new RFC has to be built to talk about them. (Imagine if something like a group review-wrangler became common).
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:13:05.000Z"}, {"author": "Glenn Deen", "text": "is Tiktok a public online fora if someone makes a comment about an IETF document on it?
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:13:16.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "per BCP245 only if the WG says to use it.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:14:00.000Z"}, {"author": "Martin D\u00fcrst", "text": "Agree with Barry: Editor and Secretary are separate roles.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:14:01.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "I would take the \"editing working group\" document part of Secretary was probably more about mechanical stuff: like getting the nroff correct. I would support changing that to helping the WG chair manage the process.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:14:06.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "+1 for the Holy Grail ref
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:19:46.000Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "My take: two of any form
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:22:44.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "Agree
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:22:53.000Z"}, {"author": "Jari Arkko", "text": "Agree also
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:22:57.000Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "We have side meetings
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:23:04.000Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "Interesting. I don't think I even knew that virtual BoFs were taking place.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:23:12.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "(I'm not convinced virtual BoFs are a good idea, but if we have them, it should be two BoFs of any sort)
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:24:00.000Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "Virtual BoF != Virtual Interim. Please.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:24:28.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "I think officially, we've said \"Virtual Interim BoF\", meaning they occurred between Plenaries.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:25:31.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "As a matter of process, we should prioritize progress on existing WG documents, not on new work, so we should take as much time on this slide as needed
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:25:34.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "And rightly so!
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:26:01.000Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "(I won't need 30 min. And agree, let this take time.)
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:26:55.000Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "I agree with EKR on the matter of side meetings.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:27:42.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "Side meetings is an important conversation, but seems out of scope for this
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:27:52.000Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "We needed all the flexibility we had and then some during COVID. Let's not needlessly self-constrain.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:29:06.000Z"}, {"author": "Michael Richardson", "text": "Actually, I think EKR and I agree strongly: I want BarBOFs to return to the BARs, and no rooms for side meetings. We agree on that!!!! I just want clarity that BOF-planning-virtual-side-meetings are allowed to use IETF resources to plan. For all the reasons we talked about for design team meetings. I don't really want virtual BOFs either. (I want side meetings and scheduled solved to free up plenary week time for more BOF time)
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:30:00.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "Add a \"force majeure\" clause to the process :)
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:30:02.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "Actually, remove the smiley.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:30:38.000Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "Actually, yes
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:30:38.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "covid very much demonstrated that we need it
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:31:13.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "So my objection to virtual bofs is that you get a totally different group of people
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:31:26.000Z"}, {"author": "Gorry Fairhurst", "text": "+1
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:32:01.000Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "Does anyone know whether the Virtual BoFs that took place were announced on ietf-announce or equivalent?
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:32:27.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "The issue with virtual bofs is not that they are virtual, it's that they don't take place during the plenary week
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:32:37.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "As to reflecting reality on virtual BOF, I can think of one since 2022. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/jwp/meetings/. I was responsible.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:33:20.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Colin Perkins said:
\n\n\nThe issue with virtual bofs is not that they are virtual, it's that they don't take place during the plenary week
\n
Yes, I think that's correct.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:33:35.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "I actually agree with EKR on that point. Virtual BoFs need much louder sirens, bells, and whistles to make sure that as much of the community is aware as possible. A single note to ietf-announce is not reasonable.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:33:53.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "I think no matter how much PR they get, you'll still only get supporters to bother to show up.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:34:41.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "I don't agree with the claim that just because the BOF is optional that it doesn't matter how they are held
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:35:09.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "It's easier for others to show up if they're scheduled during the plenary week
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:35:15.000Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "(And during plenary week working hours)
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:35:36.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "@Rich Salz Maybe granting a virtual BoF should require some number of IAB members, some number of cross-area representation, etc.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:35:47.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "There is an inherent presumption that once the BOF has happened that the results of the BOF have some validity.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:36:12.000Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "IIRC there was one we needed to do virtually so that a WG could form by the next meeting (for some reason)
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:37:12.000Z"}, {"author": "Harald Alvestrand", "text": "parenthetical - I think the 2418 language about \"One slot at one plenary\" was in response to someone who wanted a BOF to have two slots at a single meeting.....
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:37:13.000Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "I personally don't like virtual BoFs, but I don't see how this working group can opine on them.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:37:19.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Well whatever we did to form TIGRESS we shouldn't do again!
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:37:33.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "The connect drop broke it: I can't leave the queue
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:38:26.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Colin Perkins said:
\n\n\nThe connect drop broke it: I can't leave the queue
\n
Now you just need to talk to every slide
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:39:11.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "powerpoint karaoke. Well, I am in Japan
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:39:45.000Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "SECRET did lead to the successful formation of the TIGRESS WG. The group was however disbanded without accomplishing its goals
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:39:56.000Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/tigress/history/
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:40:14.000Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "SECRET was an interim BOF (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-interim-2022-secret-01-secret-01/) that led to TIGRESS, Feb 2022. If one looks at timestamps both virtual interim BOFs were held in 2022. This was the year of exiting from purely remote meetings due to COVID.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:42:34.000Z"}, {"author": "Robert Sparks", "text": "Nomcom has to pick all ADs considering that they could be appointed chair.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:44:05.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Robert Sparks said:
\n\n\nNomcom has to pick all ADs considering that they could be appointed chair.
\n
You have hit on my concern
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:44:19.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "Re: More appeals. Roman is not the person to throw under the bus. Just sayin' :)
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:46:07.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "Directions to NomCom for the IAB state that while NomCom doesn't select the IAB Chair, NomCom should make sure the IAB contains people who could be good chairs. I don't see a reason the IESG's directions couldn't say the same.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:46:09.000Z"}, {"author": "Brian Carpenter", "text": "No, the IESG jobs are too distinct for that to work.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:46:41.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "And the whole structure is that the IETF Chair is selected by nomcom
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:47:22.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "Also makes it harder to appoint less senior people to the IESG, to grow talent
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:47:29.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "+1 to Mirja
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:48:32.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "It is special. If the IETF Chair is not doing the IAB=member job, that could make them subject to recall.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:48:51.000Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "There are a number of pieces taht we probably should allow to be delegated. Personally, I do not like prying apart the IETF Chair and IESG Chair roles. I think those are intertwined in important ways for good reason.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:49:07.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Rich Salz said:
\n\n\nIt is special. If the IETF Chair is not doing the IAB=member job, that could make them subject to recall.
\n
Right. If other IAB members don't show up, we want them recalled.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:49:25.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "IAB members who don't their IAB duties are also subject to recall. What's special?
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:49:30.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "Nobody will know ?
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:49:46.000Z"}, {"author": "Colin Perkins", "text": "+1 to Mirja: having a clear path for emergencies is important
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:49:49.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "+1 to Mirja's second point and take me out of the queue.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:49:51.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "What if there were a second GEN AD selected by NomCom and the chair can devolve some portion of their responsibilities to them?
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:56:04.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "Mike Bishop said:
\n\n\nWhat if there were a second GEN AD selected by NomCom and the chair can devolve some portion of their responsibilities to them?
\n
That might or might not be wise, but I think it would meet the criterion I was espousing
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:56:42.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "Do you really want to add another AD to co-manage 1,2,3,4 groups?
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:57:56.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "So, I think the most interesting question about incapacitated is if it can be involunrary
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:58:26.000Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "As Lars currently wrote it, it can't be involuntary since his text says the IETF CHair can take their role back by speaking up. Whether that is what we want is a different quesiton.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:59:11.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "@Rich, no, but if the concern is that the NomCom have a say in advance, I don't see how else we do that.
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:59:21.000Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Perhaps we need a design team. ;-)
", "time": "2026-03-16T07:59:44.000Z"}, {"author": "Mark Nottingham", "text": "FWIW (which may not be much), this is what Gemini thinks of the issue through the lens of Institutional Grammar (which we _should_ be using to analyse our governance arrangements more, I think): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HQ-qmy9ckI92OtiRf_FgQpXwv-jCgydLhooIuubxE4M/edit?tab=t.0
", "time": "2026-03-16T08:00:47.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "I wonder if we could limit the emergency powers a bit.
", "time": "2026-03-16T08:01:15.000Z"}, {"author": "Mike Bishop", "text": "If the Chair says they're not incapacitated and their successor disagrees, there should be a tie-break. IESG? Trigger the recall process and let NomCom decide?
", "time": "2026-03-16T08:01:26.000Z"}, {"author": "Rich Salz", "text": "@Mnot: the doc's not public-readable
", "time": "2026-03-16T08:01:34.000Z"}, {"author": "Mark Nottingham", "text": "now is
", "time": "2026-03-16T08:01:50.000Z"}, {"author": "Eric Rescorla", "text": "And just say \"some things don't need to happen in the time when the chair is incapacitated\"
", "time": "2026-03-16T08:01:51.000Z"}]