Co Chairs: Jari Arkko and Leslie Daigle
Pete Resnick taking some notes with the help of others hopefully!
Agenda bash - no complaints
Rich Salz does presentation on 2026bis issues
- Goes through changes since last meeting.
- Discussing issue of IAB BCPs. While they had some sort of "last
call", but not clear that they went through the consensus process.
Disagreement in the room. Will toss over to IESG to sort it.
- Editorial comments pending. Plan is to go back to the original text.
David Schinazi does presentation on 2418bis issues
- Goes through changes since last meeting.
- Eric Rescorla (EKR) indicates that the current statements regarding
rough consensus are normative and that 7282 isn't correct in some places
so it shouldn't replace that text. Colin believes 7282 is correct, but
at the very least defining rough consensus is important. Mirja Kuhlewind
claims that it does have consensus. David will take it to an issue.
- On WG adoption of documents: Dierdre Connolly raises issue of "change
control". EKR raises issue of whether this requires WG consensus or is a
chair call. Mirja and Pete think it's not necessary to say, but it
probably does not require WG consensus. Mirja mentions that IETF already
has change control. Cullen Jennings mentions that change control is
probably the wrong metric. Lars Eggert agrees that it really is about
the WG deciding to take an individual draft and using the text for WG
work. Martin Durst says that we should remove the concept of "owned" in
this section. David will take another stab.
- Added paragraph on requirements for design teams: Joel Halpern says
that this doesn't always match reality. Colin Perkins and Roman Danyliw
ask whether this is new and therefore out of charter. Brian Carpenter
agrees that this looks new. Mirja says that we have to cover that the
design team does need to report it's output, but that may be covered
elsewhere. Pete says that the idea of secret member is new and is out of
charter. David is concerned about secret members of the design team
could launder an idea with IPR through other members. Leslie Daigle (as
participant) says that the current text is beyond the scope of the
charter. Jay Daley mentions that some information from an IESG retreat
may help; will point Roman to the discussion. Colin reminds that 2418
does not require appointment by the chair. Barry Leiba says to limit to
"output is a normal contribution". David will revisit.
- Re-arrangement of text into new "Chair Delegation" section: Dierdre
suggests cleaning up / clarifying distinction between different kinds of
fora. Particular issue with "disappearing" or "non-IETF" fora. Leslie
says should be (e.g.) things like those listed on the WG page. Also,
simplify to "ADs can name roles", but nothing more needs to be said.
Neither of these should be overly proscriptive. Barry suggests not using
too many tool-specific examples. Also, secretaries do not actually do
document editing; tweak wording to make it correspond to reality. Colin
suggests that we actually say that the fora need to be archivable. Also,
secretary does other duties than these in reality. Mirja agrees with
Barry's point: Don't say things that will be anachronistic; identify the
roles and the processes, not the specifics.
- Virtual BoFs: Roman says that this only hypothetical, so what is this
text really doing? David explains that virtual BoFs are not really
allowed by the current text, and they don't count toward the limit.
Michael Richardson expresses concerns about side meetings being used to
plan BoFs. EKR disagrees with Michael; we should distinguish between
official things and not. Also, rather not include virtual in this since
that would be new. Pete believes virutal is a reality and therefore
should be documented. Jari Arkko agrees. EKR clarifies that virtual BoFs
don't tend to get the kind of review that plenary BoFs do. Leslie
suggests we check with the IESG to make sure we are documenting reality.
Mirja reminds that these are not required parts of the process. Roman
reminds that there may only be one of these. Mike Bishop says that maybe
Francesca (Palombo) was the one who did this before. Leslie says that
this requires more research. Defer for future.
Lars presents on IETF Chair Delegation and recent discussion on the list