• Session Date/Time: 23 Jul 2026 12:00
• Notes drafted by AI, reviewed and updated by WG Chairs and meeting
  participants

PROCON

Summary

The PROCON Working Group met to discuss clarifying the group's scope and
updating its charter to accurately document current policy. The group
also reviewed progress and discussed open issues for the active working
group drafts draft-ietf-procon-2026bis and
draft-ietf-procon-2418bis. Finally, the group discussed and polled
the adoption of two individual submissions regarding IETF Chair
delegation.

Key Discussion Points

1. Working Group Scope and Proposed Charter Revision

• Presenters: Jari Arkko and Leslie Daigle (Chairs)
• Slides: PROCON Chair slides

The chairs opened a discussion on clarifying the scope of the working
group. A strict interpretation of the current charter would exclude
making minor editorial alignments or correcting obsolete technical
details (such as outdated email addresses, references to FTP, or
obsolete technologies) unless explicitly updated by an RFC.

To address this, the chairs proposed a charter update to allow the group
to reflect modern reality and maintain usable process documentation
without initiating new process innovations.

The initial proposed addition to the charter was:

"The outcome document shall document current policy accurately to
support this alignment, the working groups can integrate RFCs and ISG
statements that document the process of the IETF as well as tooling
changes that have been introduced where it influences text that was
already in RFC twenty twenty six or twenty four eighteen."

• Discussion:
  • Robert Sparks supported updating the charter but cautioned
    against adding specific mechanical tooling details back into the
    documents, emphasizing the importance of keeping the text
    tool-agnostic.
  • Pete Resnick voiced concern over the boundary between actual
    policy and temporary IESG practices, requesting a mechanism to
    push back on controversial proposals.
  • David Schinazi suggested that instead of referencing
    "tooling changes," the text should focus on "updating tooling
    references to reference the underlying policy" and explicitly
    permitting editorial adjustments.
  • Roman Danyliw (Area Director) suggested simplifying the text
    to avoid over-complicating boundaries, proposing that the
    working group simply use the first sentence: "The outcome
    documents shall document current policy accurately."
  • Lars Eggert raised concerns about specifically mentioning
    "IESG statements" in the charter, noting that doing so might
    unintentionally codify flexible, temporary interpretations into
    rigid policy.
  • Murray Kucherawy, Mirja Kühlewind, and Eric Rescorla
    supported simplifying the charter text, arguing that the working
    group's consensus process is sufficient to prevent scope creep
    or bad additions without overly constraining the charter.
  • Rich Salz agreed with the simplified text, withdrawing his
    initial concern about needing explicit mentions of tooling
    changes for protection against procedural objections.
  • Roman Danyliw (Area Director), in response to a direct query
    from Leslie Daigle (co-chair), agreed that the current draft
    for 2026bis are in scope with the WG with this charter update.
    He has not yet done a deep dive into 2418bis diffs.

2. 2026bis Update

• Presenter: Rich Salz
• Slides: 2026bis update

Rich Salz summarized the updates made in drafts 06 through 11 of
draft-ietf-procon-2026bis.

• Key Points:
  • Draft 09 Reversion: Draft 09 removed text regarding
    non-public discussion to clarify public record requirements in
    response to feedback from Dan Bernstein. However, subsequent
    review clarified that RFC 2026 does identify the minimal set of
    things that are in the public record, and it does not mandate
    that all discussions happen publicly. This change will be
    reverted.
  • External References (Section 9.1.1): John Klensin objected
    to using "Unicode" as an example of a permissible external
    standard reference, citing stability issues and the complexity
    of referencing UTS documents. Rich Salz agreed to replace the
    Unicode reference with a more stable, self-contained example,
    such as IEEE 802 Ethernet.
  • Determining Consensus: The draft currently does not specify
    who determines IETF last call consensus. The working group
    agreed this is understood to be the IESG and will clarify this
    in a future draft.
  • Style Guide References: In discussing links to style guides,
    Jean Mahoney (RFC Production Center) recommended referencing the
    RFC Editor website generally (e.g., "look for the style guide on
    the RFC Editor website") rather than pointing to specific,
    shifting RFCs like RFC 7322.

3. 2418bis Update

• Presenter: David Schinazi
• Slides: 2418bis

David Schinazi presented the latest updates and outstanding issues for
draft-ietf-procon-2418bis.

• Key Points:
  • Support Roles: The draft consolidates various historical
    working group roles (e.g., consultants, coordinators) into a
    single paragraph. Lars Eggert suggested adding text clarifying
    that the IESG may define support roles. Eric Rescorla, David
    Schinazi, and Mirja Kühlewind agreed that both chairs and ADs
    should be clearly authorized to appoint and dismiss individuals
    in support roles, provided those roles do not alter the core
    consensus process. Colin Perkins noted the text should make
    clear that ultimate responsibility and authority remain with the
    chairs.
  • Mailing Lists and Public Fora: References to "mailing lists"
    were generalized to "public fora" (such as chat groups and
    collaborative tools) to reflect modern working practices without
    explicitly naming proprietary platforms.
  • Consensus Rules of Thumb: The draft proposes removing the
    historical text regarding "51% and 99%" consensus thresholds.
    Colin Perkins noted that these numbers are technically
    incorrect, as even a 99% majority cannot override a valid,
    unresolved technical objection. Ron Bonica and Mirja Kühlewind
    supported the removal, noting that the text is frequently used
    by "rules lawyers" to the detriment of the IETF process. The
    working group agreed to keep the sentence removed.
  • Draft Adoption: David Schinazi added text clarifying that
    adopting a draft simply establishes it as the basis for future
    work. Colin Perkins requested explicitly stating that adoption
    does not commit the working group to final publication, and that
    a x group may "unadopt" a document. Lars Eggert suggested
    replacing "consensus" in the editor's role with "outcomes of the
    deliberations" to prevent confusion.
  • Design Teams: Simplified language was added regarding design
    team IPR to state basic requirements plainly without
    establishing new policy.
  • Milestones: Outdated email addresses (such as
    iesg-secretary@ietf.org) were removed from milestone change
    procedures.

4. IETF Chair Delegation Documents

• Presenter: Lars Eggert

Lars Eggert presented two individual submissions regarding IETF Chair
delegation:

1. draft-eggert-ietf-chair-standin: Focuses on establishing an
   emergency stand-in for the IETF Chair.
2. draft-eggert-ietf-chair-may-delegate: Explores which aspects of
   the IETF Chair role can be delegated.

• Discussion:
  • Mirja Kühlewind argued that while specific tasks and
    responsibilities can be delegated, the core role and voting
    rights (particularly on the IAB) must remain with the Chair.
  • Lars Eggert explained that the documents were intended to
    find ways to reduce the workload of the Chair, which has
    historically exceeded a full-time position.
  • Jari Arkko and Leslie Daigle supported adopting both
    documents as a baseline for the working group's chartered
    delegation milestones.
  • Eliot Lear agreed with adopting the stand-in draft but
    expressed reservations about the delegation draft, suggesting
    that some items are too critical to delegate. Lars Eggert noted
    that adopting the document simply provides a starting point for
    the working group to determine which specific tasks are
    delegatable.

Decisions and Action Items

Decisions

• Charter Revision: The working group agreed to propose a
  simplified charter update to the IESG:
  > "The outcome documents shall document current policy
  > accurately."

• 2026bis Draft Updates:

  • Revert the Draft 09 changes concerning non-public discussions.
  • Replace the "Unicode" reference in Section 9.1.1 with an IEEE
    802 Ethernet reference.

• 2418bis Draft Updates:

  • Retain the removal of the "51%/99%" consensus rules of thumb.
  • Update the support roles text to state that chairs and ADs may
    nominate or appoint participants to support roles but retain
    ultimate accountability.
  • Update the draft adoption text to clarify that adoption does not
    commit the working group to final publication.

Polls & Adoption

The working group conducted a poll on whether to adopt the two IETF
Chair delegation documents:

• Poll Question: Do you agree we should adopt the two IETF Chair
  documents
  (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-ietf-chair-may-delegate/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-ietf-chair-standin/)
  as WG items?
• Result: Yes: 12, No: 1, No opinion: 1 (Total: 30)

Next Steps

1. Chairs to submit the proposed charter amendment to the Area
   Director (Roman Danyliw).
2. Chairs to issue a formal call for adoption on the mailing list
   for the IETF Chair delegation documents.
3. Chairs to issue a call for co-editors on the mailing list to
   assist Lars Eggert with the newly adopted delegation drafts.
4. Editors of draft-ietf-procon-2026bis and
   draft-ietf-procon-2418bis to publish revised drafts
   incorporating the feedback and decisions from this session.