[02:16:19] lellel leaves the room
[04:14:48] DD joins the room
[04:45:04] Meetecho joins the room
[04:47:02] alex-meetecho joins the room
[04:52:31] DD leaves the room
[04:52:32] DD joins the room
[04:55:29] mcr joins the room
[04:55:30] francesca joins the room
[04:55:34] <mcr> hello!
[04:55:39] francesca has set the subject to: IETF 109
[04:55:46] RjS joins the room
[04:55:52] <mcr> @meetecho, gendispatch chat is not connected.
[04:56:02] <Meetecho> mcr: we noticed, we're investigating
[04:56:15] Greg Wood joins the room
[04:56:22] David Lawrence joins the room
[04:56:33] Mirja joins the room
[04:56:52] ghwood joins the room
[04:57:00] Jay Daley joins the room
[04:57:08] Éric Vyncke joins the room
[04:57:10] Rich Salz joins the room
[04:57:45] Eric Rescorla joins the room
[04:57:46] Alessandro Amirante joins the room
[04:57:54] Pete (in Jabber) joins the room
[04:58:00] Rich Salz leaves the room
[04:58:00] Corinne Cath joins the room
[04:58:04] Bron Gondwana joins the room
[04:58:08] Alvaro Retana joins the room
[04:58:09] Andrew Campling joins the room
[04:58:16] Jean Mahoney joins the room
[04:58:21] Brian Carpenter joins the room
[04:58:21] <Alessandro Amirante> test
[04:58:35] Alissa Cooper_890 joins the room
[04:58:36] <ghwood> @Alex ACK
[04:58:53] <Meetecho> Fixed, reloading the page will fix the chat for Meetecho users
[04:58:54] <mcr> my pronouns are "vim/emacs"
[04:59:18] Mark Nottingham joins the room
[04:59:22] <Bron Gondwana> you're so oldschool, mine are android/ios
[04:59:40] <David Lawrence> PICK ONE, mcr!
[04:59:45] Robert Sparks joins the room
[04:59:51] <David Lawrence> We can't have a proper pointless war without taking hard sides
[04:59:57] <Alissa Cooper_890> better not to make a joke about people stating pronouns
[05:00:10] <mcr> Actually, the "VIM" / Emacs war bothers me.  VIM is NOT VI.  I use VI all the time via SSH. I hate VIM.
[05:00:28] <Brian Carpenter> meetecho chat is still blank
[05:00:29] Peter Koch joins the room
[05:00:42] David Schinazi joins the room
[05:00:50] Mirja Kühlewind joins the room
[05:00:50] <David Lawrence> to be clear I was only riffing on the vi/emacs part, but point taken
[05:00:50] Henrik Levkowetz joins the room
[05:00:52] Jim Reid joins the room
[05:00:58] <Meetecho> Brian Carpenter: have you tried reloading the page? It should be fixed now
[05:00:59] Rich Salz joins the room
[05:01:02] <Eric Rescorla> Pete, are you able to remotely turn my mic on?
[05:01:09] Mark Nottingham leaves the room
[05:01:11] Mark Nottingham joins the room
[05:01:12] Mirja Kühlewind leaves the room
[05:01:15] Mark Nottingham_509 joins the room
[05:01:15] <Eric Rescorla> hah
[05:01:16] Mirja Kühlewind joins the room
[05:01:28] <mcr> Seriously, I would be very happy for my pronoun to be "they", and for that to be the default in the language.
[05:01:44] adrianfarrel joins the room
[05:01:58] <Bron Gondwana> the video isn't loading right for me
[05:02:03] <Brian Carpenter> is it safe to reload the meetecho page just like that?
[05:02:07] <Andrew Campling> Nor me - very slow
[05:02:09] Mark Nottingham_509 leaves the room
[05:02:09] Greg Wood leaves the room
[05:02:14] Greg Wood joins the room
[05:02:17] mcr shift-reload
[05:02:18] Michael Richardson joins the room
[05:02:24] <francesca> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/session/gendispatch
[05:02:24] <Meetecho> Brian Carpenter: yes, it will autorejoin you
[05:02:33] Corinne Cath leaves the room
[05:02:39] <Meetecho> Bron Gondwana: it looks like the screen is being captured that way by the browser
[05:02:44] Corinne Cath joins the room
[05:02:45] <Bron Gondwana> looks OK now
[05:02:48] <Bron Gondwana> thanks Pete
[05:02:56] Mark Nottingham_835 joins the room
[05:03:03] Brian Carpenter_457 joins the room
[05:03:21] <Pete (in Jabber)> Excellent. Thanks.
[05:03:52] <Brian Carpenter> yes, the reload worked
[05:03:54] Rüdiger Volk joins the room
[05:04:17] Joey Salazar joins the room
[05:04:25] Joey Salazar leaves the room
[05:04:46] Kiran Makhijani joins the room
[05:04:58] <Pete (in Jabber)> I take silence as lack of bashing of agenda.
[05:05:23] <Pete (in Jabber)> :)
[05:05:23] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[05:05:28] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[05:05:31] Murray Kucherawy joins the room
[05:05:43] Monika Ermert joins the room
[05:05:52] Eric Kinnear joins the room
[05:06:19] Joey Salazar joins the room
[05:07:23] <Eric Rescorla> Or more than a second
[05:07:26] <francesca> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-gendispatch-rfc7221bis-00.pdf
[05:07:26] <Eric Rescorla> This looks like it is failing
[05:07:46] <mcr> this is why having them all in a single program as tabs works better... and defeats a similar bug in webex.
[05:07:52] Oliver Borchert joins the room
[05:08:16] John Levine joins the room
[05:08:29] Bob Hinden joins the room
[05:09:36] Pete Resnick joins the room
[05:10:04] <Pete (in Jabber)> OK, got it now.
[05:10:15] <Pete (in Jabber)> But thanks Francesca for sharing them instead.
[05:11:16] Mike Bishop joins the room
[05:12:23] <Pete (in Jabber)> And my apologies for the cat yelling in the background.
[05:12:59] Eliot Lear joins the room
[05:13:18] DD leaves the room
[05:13:20] Robert Wilton joins the room
[05:13:35] Paolo Saviano joins the room
[05:14:15] DD joins the room
[05:14:28] <Mirja> Ah that was a cat. Good to know…
[05:14:45] Mihail Yanev joins the room
[05:16:36] Erik Wilde joins the room
[05:17:16] <mcr> hmm. I hate writing too many rules.  But, my experience is that WG chairs are not actually aware of the current rules!  They follow only one process, which they THINK is the rule.
[05:17:23] <mcr> I see your point Pete.
[05:18:10] Lorenzo Colitti joins the room
[05:18:16] <Peter Koch> @mcr that's a matter of wg chair training iff (sic!) it is a matter at all; descriptive over normative, here
[05:18:33] Erik Wilde leaves the room
[05:18:36] Erik Wilde joins the room
[05:19:07] <mcr> I guess I'd like a normative document saying clearly that the "2-week Adoption Call" is not actually a rule, just one of many ways.
[05:19:20] <mcr> I'd like a NON-BCP.
[05:19:34] <adrianfarrel> Why does @ekr say this has rules in it when it doesn?
[05:19:43] <Rich Salz> can we dispatch to the WGchairs wiki?
[05:19:52] Stuart Cheshire joins the room
[05:19:52] <adrianfarrel> @rich sure
[05:20:06] <mcr> or to the plenary.
[05:20:17] <mcr> It's not just WG chairs that need to know this stuff.
[05:20:25] <Peter Koch> interpretation guidelines for existing rules would be "informational"
[05:20:54] <mcr> Worst Current Praice.
[05:21:28] <mcr> (Christian has a lnice bookcase)
[05:21:43] <Bron Gondwana> you'll see mine in a sec
[05:22:03] <mcr> (I thought you were in an AirBNB?)
[05:22:09] <Bron Gondwana> not this time
[05:22:14] Martin Thomson joins the room
[05:22:34] <Bron Gondwana> I was for the past IETF because it was overnight
[05:22:47] <Peter Koch> @mcr it's maybe more Interesting Current Non-Practice (as opposed to Malpractice)
[05:22:59] Monika Ermert leaves the room
[05:23:02] Monika Ermert joins the room
[05:23:43] <mcr> 62 people in the room.  Multiple ADs, IAB, and WG chairs in the group. Not exclusively though.
[05:23:49] <Martin Thomson> audio?
[05:25:35] Robert Story joins the room
[05:26:08] Robert Story leaves the room
[05:26:14] Erik Wilde leaves the room
[05:26:17] Erik Wilde joins the room
[05:26:33] <Andrew Campling> IMHO Bron made a good point about not relying on people having 30 years knowledge about norms in order to understand IETF practices - transparency is good in such matters  
[05:27:08] Eric Rescorla leaves the room
[05:27:17] Eric Rescorla joins the room
[05:27:24] <Peter Koch> "the nice thing about rules is that there are so many to follow, maybe we should codify that as a rule" - credits xkcd
[05:27:26] <Bron Gondwana> I have to say... I'm a chair of 3 working groups and I thought until today that I had to do a 2 week call for adoption even though I'm quite certain that there's consensus
[05:27:35] <Eric Rescorla> I think perhaps 2418 could use some revisions
[05:27:56] <Bron Gondwana> for documents which we already had a milestone for and had discussed multiple times but they just didn't have a draft written for yet
[05:28:10] <mcr> Bron, that. It gets trained in somewhere because we saw everyone else do it.  It's cargo culting!
[05:28:17] <Bron Gondwana> yep
[05:28:38] <David Lawrence> .. a certain crowd like mnot? :)
[05:28:53] <Bron Gondwana> Australians - he's talking about Australians
[05:29:02] <Brian Carpenter_457> 2418 could use a wash and brush-up, but 2026 is a disaster zone
[05:29:05] <mcr> ! BEER !
[05:29:34] <Bron Gondwana> PARLAY
[05:30:24] <adrianfarrel> We could add a note saying something like...
   NOTE:  This document is intentionally non-normative.  It is meant as
      a guide to common practice, rather than as a formal definition of
      what is permissible.
[05:31:29] <mcr> . o O ( The Chebecca Defense )
[05:31:35] Erik Wilde leaves the room
[05:31:38] Erik Wilde joins the room
[05:32:46] <mcr> so dispatch to EDUteam and web site team.  I can live with that.
[05:32:50] <Bron Gondwana> The goal that I see it is to give chairs guidelines which aren't cargo cult.  But putting it on an RFC and putting the content of THAT on ietf.org means we have a paper trail about where the content on ietf.org came from and what authority it has
[05:33:09] <Bob Hinden> People will treat an IETF web page the same if it is an RFC.
[05:33:30] <mcr> We could also just put it on ietf.org, do an IETF LC on that.
[05:34:04] Francois Ortolan joins the room
[05:34:05] <Mark Nottingham> We have an Informational document, Eliot.
[05:34:19] Joey Salazar leaves the room
[05:34:23] Francois Ortolan leaves the room
[05:34:41] <Eric Rescorla> @Eliot, that's what 7282 says as well, and yet people keep citing it
[05:34:43] Erik Wilde leaves the room
[05:35:05] <Pete (in Jabber)> Christian, the queue was closed (for the moment.)
[05:35:25] <Mark Nottingham> wg-chairs@ is not the only constituency; as was noted, this is bigger.
[05:35:26] <Rich Salz> I am concerned that some will interpret an RFC as rules and try to game the system (cf ITU and IP-next)
[05:35:27] <David Schinazi> @Eliot, please curb your condescension it's insulting
[05:35:44] <mcr> Eric, maybe RFC7282 should have been BCP.
[05:35:59] <Eric Rescorla> @mcr: well, I think it's wrong, so obviously I'm not in favor of that
[05:36:40] <mcr> I'm really curious to understand (sometime where beer or running is involved), why it's wrong.
[05:36:46] <Eric Rescorla> Sure, happy to
[05:37:04] <Pete (in Jabber)> I'd of course love to be in on that conversation. :-)
[05:37:27] Kenneth Murchison joins the room
[05:38:00] <Mirja> can we dispatch as a tools tip in the datatracker?
[05:38:17] <Mark Nottingham> dispatch to a GitHub Action.
[05:38:20] <mcr> you might be joking, or maybe you are just really brilliant!
[05:38:43] <Mirja> I think the question is who do we make sure people are aware of this information and and RFC might not be the best way (however it provided a stable reference)
[05:38:46] <mcr> RFC2418bis. hmm.
[05:38:47] <Alissa Cooper_890> relevant links for this discussion:
[05:38:48] <Alissa Cooper_890> https://www.ietf.org/chairs/
[05:38:54] <Alissa Cooper_890> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/wgchairs/
[05:38:55] <Pete (in Jabber)> EKR: For the notes: You think a possibility is adding to 2418?
[05:39:11] <Eric Rescorla> Pete: yes, to the extent to which we think that the process needs clarity
[05:39:24] <Pete (in Jabber)> ack.
[05:39:56] <Eliot Lear> Gents, these guys set out to clarify the guidance that's there, not to revise 2418.  That's a far far bigger effort.
[05:40:08] <mcr> You didn't answer my question, @ekr, how would you clarify the process?  Do you think we should just make current practice the rule? (Which would make Bron happier)
[05:40:09] <Eric Rescorla> Eliot: we really are aware of this
[05:40:31] <Eric Rescorla> Sorry, I missed it
[05:40:33] <Eliot Lear> Are you proposing to take that on EKR?
[05:40:41] <mcr> clearly, to clarify the process, yes, Updates 2418 would make more sense.
[05:41:10] <adrianfarrel> It is interesting to look at the history tab for the WG chair wiki. I would say it is mainly not used
[05:41:19] <Eric Rescorla> My view is that we should have rules that are clear. To the extent to which they are not clear, I think we should clarify them.
[05:41:37] <Alissa Cooper_890> You can't discern whether people read the wiki by looking at the history tab.
[05:41:45] Jay Daley leaves the room
[05:41:46] <adrianfarrel> True.
[05:41:52] <Eric Rescorla> I think there are few things that aren't totally clear in 2418 and if someone wants to pick that up, I'd send some notes
[05:42:02] <Bron Gondwana> I don't care which document is being updated, I just care about guidelines
[05:42:46] <Eric Rescorla> Probably don't have the time to do a 2418 revision myself. I think that might be valuable but I don't think the cost/benefit analysis pays off for me
[05:42:55] <Bron Gondwana> that are not "chairs have ultimate power"
[05:43:19] <Eliot Lear> Yes.  I don't see value in opening 2418 for this.
[05:43:20] <Bron Gondwana> because that makes everything appealable
[05:43:31] <Mirja> I think this could go on a website, but I also have to say i find it hard to find things on the ietf.org page…
[05:43:52] <mcr> Bron, you'd prefer that chairs had fewer options, but maybe more options than what currently seems to be 2-week Adoption Call.
[05:44:06] <Bron Gondwana> well, I just learned that's not really a thing
[05:44:21] <Mirja> it also depends on who this guidance is directed to in order to decide where to put it (and that's not fully clear to me yet)
[05:45:37] <francesca> Mirja: good point to bring to the mic :)
[05:45:44] <mcr> Perhaps we can agree that we need more clear material in *WG CHAIR TRAINING*, but also in the *Newcomers*.  A few years ago I sat through the newcomers orientation, and it was interesting to learn where the emphasis was.  I think it was long ago enough that Scott was doing it.
[05:45:45] <Mike Bishop> If it's just guidance to chairs, that's fine, but I think in the interest of transparency, everyone should be able to read the guidance to the chairs.
[05:46:40] <mcr> Mike, yes, so I have regularly had to train my the chairs of a WG that I'm involved in.    I've even ghost written IANA early allocation requests.
[05:46:43] <Mark Nottingham> Pete just volunteered for a retirement project...
[05:47:31] <Pete (in Jabber)> I believe Andrew just volunteered to be a chair.
[05:47:40] <mcr> that's what I was heard too!
[05:47:45] <Alissa Cooper_890> With the revamp of EMODIR we have been hoping to organize initiatives around specific audiences, and WG chairs is one such audience. So training, documentation, etc. could be streamlined per audience.
[05:47:55] DD leaves the room
[05:48:18] <Mirja> mandatory compliance training for chairs… (duck down)
[05:48:41] <Bron Gondwana> tin pot dictators the lot of them
[05:48:44] <Rich Salz> @mcr: The newcomer's is very different from when Scott was doing it. Could be worth checking out a recent video (past 3 years maybe).
[05:48:46] <mcr> sure, sounds like a fun weekend in the woods!!!!
[05:48:56] <Alissa Cooper_890> he he nothing mandatory but would be nice to get more regular and accessible WG chairs training
[05:48:59] <mcr> @Rich, I know it has changed again.
[05:49:38] DD joins the room
[05:49:44] <Rich Salz> Maybe not everyone on the chat does :)
[05:49:54] <Andrew Campling> @Pete !
[05:50:08] Corinne Cath leaves the room
[05:50:32] Corinne Cath joins the room
[05:50:33] <Mirja> actually having a longer training for new chairs on sunday or saturday in person (then just a lunch break meeting) is problem not a bad idea
[05:50:44] Corinne Cath leaves the room
[05:50:45] <Rich Salz> How come the TAO RFC 6722 isn't historical?
[05:50:47] Corinne Cath joins the room
[05:51:15] <mcr> Yes. Please.  But, actually, in addition to the Sunday/Saturday before the week, we probably need something about 1 month beforehand.
[05:51:19] <Pete (in Jabber)> @Mirja: I agree. I think a bunch of resources would be great.
[05:51:23] <Brian Carpenter_457> Oh, start a WG to obsolete it
[05:51:59] Kiran Makhijani leaves the room
[05:52:17] <Brian Carpenter_457> BTW: https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/informal/
[05:52:17] <Alissa Cooper_890> IEEE SA launched WG chairs training this year. https://standards.ieee.org/about/training/index.html
[05:52:27] <mcr> Mirja, the lunch-time WG session is mostly over-subscribed in time to be effective as training for newcomers.  
[05:52:28] <Bob Hinden> We could do a variety of IETF training inbetween IETF meetings.  Doesn't have to be part of the meeting.
[05:53:04] Alvaro Retana leaves the room
[05:53:09] Alvaro Retana joins the room
[05:53:11] <Pete (in Jabber)> There's a bunch of very experienced chairs who could use some help too, so this isn't just about newbies.
[05:53:16] <Mirja> yes online trainings are fine as well but I think there is also a value to do this in person
[05:53:22] <Mike Bishop> @Bob, I would love to see more IETF training sessions between meetings, particularly while we have virtual meetings and don't need them to be wedged in while we're on-site.
[05:53:25] <Mark Nottingham> training is useful for increasing knowledge in a core group, but doesn't scale as well as writing things down — something we need to get a lot better at.
[05:53:30] <Bron Gondwana> value === "free lunch"
[05:53:54] <Bron Gondwana> Mark +1
[05:54:19] <Brian Carpenter_457> What Rob just said is 100% true and has been true for 20 years
[05:54:22] <Mike Bishop> @Mark, that's true, but training enables questions and discussion.  I don't think it needs to be either/or.
[05:54:34] <mcr> I think that maybe there should be a test actually. A recertification process even.  My wife has to know the latest legal/medical situation to retain her credentials as an RT.  WG chairing does not (I hope) involve life/death decisions, but 90% of the updates that my wife goes through are actually rather mundane.
[05:54:38] <Mark Nottingham> Mike - didn't say it was :)
[05:54:50] <David Lawrence> the info can't merely exist, it needs to be promoted too
[05:54:52] <Bron Gondwana> I have to do CPR every fricking year, even though I've never used it
[05:55:00] <Mirja> I noticed new chairs because if we do this frequently then at some point all chairs would have done the training but to start with there might be current chairs who are interested as well
[05:55:14] <mcr> Yes, exactly like the CPR.  I am out-of-date... and I have used it.
[05:56:07] <Mark Nottingham> The IETF excels at duplicating information in multiple confusing places. Why stop now?
[05:56:16] <Bron Gondwana> it's pretty simple these days - 30 compressions, 2 breaths if you feel like it, repeat until conditions change
[05:56:37] <Bron Gondwana> none of these different counts for different age groups complexity
[05:56:41] <Brian Carpenter_457> The documentation of the standards process is already a disaster. That's why this exists: https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/informal/
[05:56:44] <Pete (in Jabber)> Done to the beat of "Stayin' Alive (Bee Gees).
[05:56:46] Éric Vyncke leaves the room
[05:56:51] <Bron Gondwana> uh uh uh uh
[05:57:10] John Levine leaves the room
[05:57:21] <Mark Nottingham> @Brian: the problem is that it's buried among lots of other stuff, and isn't clear about who its audience is.
[05:57:30] <Mirja> Not sure we need CPR training for chairs ;-)
[05:57:32] Chris Box joins the room
[05:57:38] <Andrew Campling> Update the RFC (ideally as a BCP) after input from the Chairs list  then consider updating the website, training materials etc.
[05:57:39] <Mirja> (might be helpful though)
[05:57:39] <Mike Bishop> My last time was online, with a tool that docked points for administering too many compressions.  30 is not a multiple of the stayin' alive loop!
[05:57:55] <Brian Carpenter_457> Yes, but it's the best we have, which is rather sad
[06:00:29] <mcr> What I'm hearing is that we need to have an annotated and maintained narrative "How we work", which references, and quotes RFCs, connecting the different documents together.    
[06:00:35] <Pete (in Jabber)> Trying to get my head around the dispatch question: Are people saying, "We should work on the bigger picture (training, information on web pages, etc.), but we shouldn't simply update 7221"?
[06:01:01] <Mirja> https://www.ietf.org/how/
[06:01:17] <Andrew Campling> @Pete I'm not - update RFC as BCP then worry about updating other materials, training....
[06:01:29] <mcr> Pete: that's what I'm hearing, but I'm also hearing some people say that they want normative documents against which they can consider, WRT potential for appeals.
[06:01:45] <Andrew Campling> Do the document housekeeping first
[06:02:48] <mcr> I think that 7282 got a order of magnitude more discussion than 7221.  
[06:03:05] <Alissa Cooper_890> Perhaps ask about multiple options? 1) documentation and training, 2) documentation and training and progress informational doc as AD-sponsored, 3) progress informational doc as AD-sponsored
[06:03:37] <mcr> https://www.ietf.org/how/ does not clearly connect to the mechanics.  It lists the objects, but not the processes or relationships.
[06:04:18] <Eric Rescorla> I just lost audio. Francesca could repeat what you think you heard
[06:04:35] <Bob Hinden> Let's try to not take on boiling the ocean....
[06:04:45] <Mirja> The whole webpage needs work in my opinion…
[06:04:52] <Eric Rescorla> I believe both christian and I were objecting to it being informational
[06:05:52] <Eliot Lear> I haven't heard anyone say that 7221 was used to actually bash someone over the head.
[06:06:23] <Bob Hinden> Why do we have to decide it's status?   Isn't that part of working on the document?
[06:06:41] <Eliot Lear> @Christian- that's a tonal change for the draft.
[06:06:45] <francesca> Bob it is part of our dispatching outcome (if we can)
[06:06:46] <Brian Carpenter_457> "NOTE:  This document is intentionally non-normative.
It is meant as a guide to common practice, rather than as a formal definition of what is permissible."
[06:07:17] <Pete (in Jabber)> Well, we;re meant to recommend to Alissa what to do with the document. If it needs work to decide on status, that might be we need a WG or something. (hypothetically)
[06:07:18] <Bron Gondwana> common practice == exclusionary tool.  Chairs can do favours for their friends
[06:07:30] <mcr> @Brian, but I think that the tone needs to be right.  I don't know if the tone is wrong.
[06:07:34] <Mirja> I guess guidance doesn't need IETF consensus…
[06:07:50] <Eric Rescorla> well any RFC in the IETF stream now needs consensus
[06:08:00] <Mirja> yes so maybe not IETF stream
[06:08:07] <Bob Hinden> Francesca:   Seems like it is getting in the way of the important decision.
[06:08:14] <Andrew Campling> Transparency of process is good rather than relying on osmosis
[06:08:23] <Eric Rescorla> Sure, this could maybe go to the ISE
[06:08:29] <Eric Rescorla> Though there might be the tiniest bit of a CoI
[06:09:04] <Eliot Lear> @EKR- if people don't read front material, why does it matter how the document is published?
[06:09:44] <Eric Rescorla> I think people think the title RFC matter
[06:10:09] <Andrew Campling> Given RFC7221 exists, updating it seems to be necessary, the only issue is whether informational or BCP
[06:10:21] <Eric Rescorla> well, we could update it to historic
[06:10:27] Jari Arkko joins the room
[06:10:30] <Henrik Levkowetz> Having a website that clarifies an RFC is the wrong way around
[06:10:41] <Mike Bishop> Would people read that historic state, though?
[06:11:01] <Eric Rescorla> Probably not, but that's just a basic failing of the RFC series structure
[06:11:16] <Andrew Campling> @Pete Definitely update the document before worrying about the website etc
[06:11:19] <Brian Carpenter_457> If we moved the info to the web, yes, but for the benefit of new participants we do need the info out there.
[06:11:21] <Eric Rescorla> I mean, there are lots of RFCs that say silly things (some of which are by me) which we have no way to retract
[06:11:30] <Henrik Levkowetz> We should still make this one update
[06:11:30] Jari Arkko leaves the room
[06:11:57] <Mirja> If rfc7221 is outdated maybe an RFC is actually not the right approach for this guidance
[06:12:01] <Eric Rescorla> I'm fine with the website/wiki thing
[06:12:28] <Eliot Lear> How will we agree on what goes on the web site?
[06:12:37] <Eliot Lear> Or are we going to simply bypass review?
[06:12:50] <Eric Rescorla> We've already solved this problem for the Tao, it seems
[06:12:55] <Alissa Cooper_890> We can do review on list, same for the tao
[06:12:58] <Oliver Borchert> I don't believe first web and then document is the wrong path to go.
[06:13:01] <Mirja> we can also ask for community feedback on the content of a webpage
[06:13:04] <Mark Nottingham> Are we implying that 7221 is somehow more authoritative than a we bsite?
[06:13:15] <Eric Rescorla> And also we can *change* it once we discover it's wrong
[06:13:48] <Bron Gondwana> I used to think we should agree on the document first but I'm getting convinced that it's just a way to stop work happening
[06:13:57] <Brian Carpenter_457> fyi I need to drop off in about 10 min.
[06:13:58] <Mirja> 7221 is probably more stable than a website (and there for better to point to)…
[06:14:15] <Rich Salz> @Mnot: make that point on the mic
[06:14:18] <Mark Nottingham> A website is as stable as you want it to be, with appropriate administration
[06:14:23] <Mike Bishop> This is sounding like a WG proposal.
[06:14:34] <Henrik Levkowetz> It's not about stability, it's about precedence
[06:14:50] <Andrew Campling> @Francesca Perhaps try the polling tool?
[06:14:58] <Alissa Cooper_890> 7221 is already linked from the web site
[06:14:58] <Mark Nottingham> Pete that is so not my ponit
[06:15:00] <Mirja> but there is no guarantee for stability (however not sure we need it here)
[06:15:03] <francesca> suggestion for questions Andrew?
[06:15:10] <francesca> :)
[06:15:11] <Eliot Lear> Are we preempting an update to 7221 by putting this stuff on a web site?
[06:15:36] <Bob Hinden> Seems like if you want to update an RFC, the update also needs to be an RFC
[06:15:41] <Alissa Cooper_890> Eliot, no, same as the tao
[06:16:11] <Andrew Campling> Should we update RFC7221? Should it be a BCP or informational or (insert other status options)?
[06:16:21] <Henrik Levkowetz> Update, yes
[06:17:07] <Jim Reid> +1 to what Mirja has just said. First define the problem.
[06:18:18] <Alissa Cooper_890> could do some "what can you live with" questions
[06:18:45] Corinne Cath leaves the room
[06:18:45] <Alissa Cooper_890> Can you live with web site documentation, perhaps followed later by a 7221 update?
Can you live with a 7221 update as informational?
Can you live with a 7221 update as BCP?
[06:18:46] DD leaves the room
[06:18:50] Corinne Cath joins the room
[06:19:13] <Andrew Campling> ^^^ put these to group via polling tool
[06:19:44] <Jim Reid> @Andrew polling? The IETF does not vote.
[06:19:55] DD joins the room
[06:20:02] <Mark Nottingham> FWIW I don't see the clarifications as critical
[06:20:33] <Andrew Campling> @Jim True, but there is a polling tool on Meetecho that has been used this week to clarify the views in the "room"
[06:20:36] <Mark Nottingham> What is the *use* of 7221? We don't seem to have agreement about that.
[06:20:49] <Oliver Borchert> RFC's have a process, does the website have one?
[06:21:00] <Henrik Levkowetz> Yes, the point exactly
[06:21:14] <Eliot Lear> @olivier- certainly not documented.
[06:21:28] <Alissa Cooper_890> then we should take down the tao page
[06:21:32] <Oliver Borchert> But the RFC is a more open process.
[06:21:33] Alvaro Retana leaves the room
[06:21:56] <Henrik Levkowetz> Yes, the tao should go back to being published ad RFC
[06:21:56] <Bob Hinden> Everyone understands the RFC process, the web site not so much.
[06:22:07] <Eliot Lear> Maybe we don't NEED a process for non-normative stuff
[06:22:18] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[06:22:22] <Alissa Cooper_890> so that newcomers can believe the IETF is exactly as it was in 2012
[06:22:24] <Eric Rescorla> But if we all agree that this has no nomative force, I don't see what the problem in having it be living is
[06:22:34] <Oliver Borchert> If there are disputes in the RFC which might delay the update, why should a Website help here?
[06:22:34] <Henrik Levkowetz> I think we do -- otherwise transparency will suffer
[06:23:02] <Eric Rescorla> just to so how incompetent I am, I thought I had muted myself just then
[06:23:15] Jiao Kang joins the room
[06:23:21] Jiao Kang leaves the room
[06:23:30] <Eliot Lear> But however we apply the process (or lack thereof), whether it is an RFC or a web site, apply it evenly.
[06:23:51] <Jim Reid> @Eliot, I agree. There's no reason to have process around non-normative  stuff just for the sake of having process.
[06:24:25] <Andrew Campling> +1 to Henrik's point.  I think that the  lack of transparency is a problem, discourages participation
[06:24:33] <Henrik Levkowetz> Not for the sake of process, but certainly for the sake of transparency and accountability
[06:24:34] Jay Daley joins the room
[06:24:37] <Brian Carpenter> So, apologies to the chairs, but I have to go in 2 minutes. Please let me know what I should do next...
[06:24:45] <Eric Rescorla> The reason why i am comfortable with the web site is precisely that it lowers the stakes of the content
[06:24:53] <Pete (in Jabber)> @Brian: Ack.
[06:24:56] <Eric Rescorla> And therefore it matters less what the process is
[06:25:21] <Henrik Levkowetz> It would also devalue all RFCs if the website can override an RFC, even if informational
[06:25:25] <mcr> so, we could get IETF LC on the document, but not publish it, instead take it as input to the web site.
[06:25:47] <Eric Rescorla> I don't think override is meaningful here, because, as stated repeatedly, this is non-normative
[06:26:39] <Eric Rescorla> Though that said, I don't agree with the claim that it devalues RFCS if the website overrides an RFC. That's effectively what errata are
[06:26:41] <Andrew Campling> Just updating the website seems like it's avoiding the question about how to correct RFC7221
[06:26:48] <Henrik Levkowetz> If it doesn't override, it doesn't need to be published -- if it needs to be published, you're saying that it *will* override parts of an informational RFC
[06:27:16] <Mirja> I still think the question is how to get the right information to the right people and I guess an RFC or a webpage might both have problems to not reach the right people…
[06:27:20] <Eric Rescorla> As I said I don't think it needs to be published. I'm merely willing to accede to it being on the website
[06:27:25] <Eliot Lear> I think the issue here is this: what happens if someone makes a change to the web site that others find misleading or just wrong?
[06:27:32] Eric Rescorla leaves the room
[06:27:40] Eric Rescorla joins the room
[06:27:51] <Mirja> from a point of view of providing a reference I don't might that much what to do (webpage is a less heavy process though)
[06:27:54] <Eliot Lear> How to resolve those disagreements?
[06:27:56] <Eric Rescorla> @Eliot: you're going to find this part amazing: we just change it
[06:28:03] <David Lawrence> trial by combat
[06:28:06] <Jim Reid> If 7221 is broken, surely it's up to the people who say that to supply textto update it?
[06:28:19] <Brian Carpenter_457> we did that ;-)
[06:28:30] <Andrew Campling> @Jim That is what the proposed text from Brian et al is for
[06:28:43] <Brian Carpenter_457> Anyway I have to go
[06:28:53] Brian Carpenter_457 leaves the room
[06:29:01] <Eliot Lear> @EKR but who's this "we"?
[06:29:10] Brian Carpenter leaves the room
[06:29:18] <Eric Rescorla> As noted before, we already have a process for this with the Tao
[06:29:30] <Eliot Lear> Where's that?
[06:30:03] <Eric Rescorla> The IESG takes PRs on github and asks for community feedback when it deems it necessary
[06:30:49] <Eric Rescorla> Frankly, I find this a surprising argument: there's a huge amount of guidance about how to participate in the IETF (like, for instance, where it's happening etc.) that is just put on the Website, not an RFC. Chaos has not ensued
[06:30:56] <Alissa Cooper_890> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss
[06:31:18] <Andrew Campling> @Ekr - PRs on Github is hardly an open, accessible process
[06:31:45] <Eliot Lear> But neither has chaos ensued with 7221.
[06:31:46] <Eric Rescorla> Andrew: I don't agree with that claim. In fact, we have an RFC describing precisely how that fits into our open process
[06:32:00] <Henrik Levkowetz> I simply don't get the resistance to updating RFC7221
[06:32:03] <Jim Reid> @ Andrew, I know that. However this WG doesn't seem to be coalescing around rfc7221bis. As the discussion about web pages shows. So maybe the ID needs further work?
[06:32:07] <Henrik Levkowetz> Why not just do it?
[06:32:40] <Lorenzo Colitti> what is the advantage of the website actually?
[06:32:42] <Jim Reid> +1 to Henrik. just get 7221 updated.
[06:32:46] katerega micheal joins the room
[06:32:47] <Lorenzo Colitti> +1
[06:33:02] <Lorenzo Colitti> if we publish on the website, there's bound to be confusion on which guidance is more correct
[06:33:14] <Alissa Cooper_890> There were a bunch of objections raised throughout the discussion, perhaps people didn't hear them.
[06:33:16] <Andrew Campling> @Ekr - it's a process, just not especially accessible if the IETF wants to diversify participation
[06:33:24] <mcr> well, the web site can quote 7221bis in a useful way.
[06:33:29] <Rüdiger Volk> heretic formalist approach: do a very short RFC obsoleting 7221 and just telling the URL for the relevant  current information - do I see the text for the web site yet? who is maintaining it and what authority will tha have?
[06:33:30] <Andrew Campling> +1 to Henrik
[06:33:43] <Mark Nottingham> -1. These are minor clarifications to 7221, and the document isn't having much impact, partially because it's an RFC, and partially because it's not normative. Putting something on the web site is a much better use of our time.
[06:33:45] <Eric Rescorla> @Andrew: i'm not going to relitigate the github thing here. suffice to say I think you have it exactly backward
[06:34:08] <Bron Gondwana> I'm of the strong opinion that the IETF's biggest problem is too many fricking cooks and too many choices
[06:34:13] <Jim Reid> @Mark RFCs don;t have an impact? :-)
[06:34:17] <Bob Hinden> I am willing to be an editor for a 7221bis
[06:34:20] <Mirja> my only concern is unnecessarily burning man power in the RFC process if putting the info on the webpage would so a better job of reaching the goal
[06:34:20] <Lorenzo Colitti> mnot: what is not  a good use of our time is this endless discussion :)
[06:34:20] <Mark Nottingham> Many don't.
[06:34:24] <mcr> I'm pretty happy with a TAO/GITHUB result, provided that we can come to consensus about what, if anything, to do with rfc7221.
[06:35:39] <Lorenzo Colitti> we want to grow the ietf with people who can write rfcs
[06:35:43] <Lorenzo Colitti> if they can't even read them, then...?
[06:35:47] <David Lawrence> dao :)
[06:35:50] <Henrik Levkowetz> I've been quite uncomfortable with the current Tao not being RFC
[06:35:54] katerega micheal leaves the room
[06:36:21] <Mike Bishop> I'd be content with marking 7221 historic or obsolete (and likewise the tao), and having a "living" replacement.
[06:37:02] <Bob Hinden> +1 to what Lorenzo is saying
[06:37:09] <Henrik Levkowetz> +1
[06:37:14] <Andrew Campling> +1
[06:37:27] <Mark Nottingham> When was it ever authoritative guidance?
[06:37:31] <Jim Reid> +1 to what Lorenzo is saying too
[06:37:32] <Rich Salz> -1 to Lorenzo
[06:37:33] <mcr> but, that's just it: it wasn't authoritative :-)
[06:37:40] <francesca> basically we can't win Lorenzo?
[06:37:43] <Mark Nottingham> *this* is the problem
[06:37:57] <David Lawrence> this is shockingly hard
[06:38:26] <Andrew Campling> Updating the RFC doesn't prevent the website being update too, it's not either/or
[06:38:33] <Henrik Levkowetz> indeed
[06:39:00] <Jim Reid> definitive advice rather than authoritative advice would perhaps have been a better choice of wording?
[06:39:14] <Alissa Cooper_890> we can also close this WG if people find this to be a waste of time
[06:39:23] <Mark Nottingham> Part of the issue is that re-issuing the document reinforces this perception by some — but not all! — that it's authoritative. If we don't resolve that it's not a good outcome.
[06:39:25] <Mirja> @bron but this is not what is proposed by this draft
[06:39:54] <Eliot Lear> I think EKR, Christian, mnot, and Rich are angling toward a principled argument that some of this stuff should never be in an RFC.  That's fair.  Write an RFC...
[06:39:55] <David Lawrence> close gendispatch?!
[06:40:06] <Eric Rescorla> We already do have something that describes how chairs are supposed to behaved -- normatively -- it's 2418
[06:40:13] <Mark Nottingham> @Eliot - no, you're putting words in our mouths.
[06:40:49] <Andrew Campling> Is that a dolphin?
[06:41:05] <adrianfarrel> I suspect that an attempt to set firm rules for WG chairs would run into even bigger issues. We all know what rules we want to see, but I would not be surprised to find that no two sets of opinions match.
[06:41:16] <David Lawrence> Pete's cat caught a dolphin
[06:41:27] <Mark Nottingham> If there's an RFC about our process, it needs to be either clearly authoritative, or VERY VERY clearly advisory / guidance that can be ignored (and when). Being in the middle is actively harmful.
[06:41:42] <adrianfarrel> @mark +1
[06:42:22] <Pete (in Jabber)> And I didn't even get my dive gear on. :-o
[06:42:50] <Rich Salz> painful, but useful and not a waste of time
[06:42:57] <mcr> sleep on it.
[06:42:58] <Lorenzo Colitti> mnot: there *is* an rfc about our process :)
[06:42:59] <Eliot Lear> +1 to what mnot wrote
[06:43:09] <Alissa Cooper_890> to the list
[06:43:28] <Mark Nottingham> Lorenzo: there are many. Some are clear about their status; others are not. This one is in the latter bucket, as evidenced by discussion today.
[06:43:54] <Bob Hinden> That is why we need an revision that replaces it.
[06:44:00] Xiao Ma joins the room
[06:44:09] <adrianfarrel> @Mark, it would be helpful if you could suggest what changes would make the status clear
[06:44:22] <Bron Gondwana> +1 to asking wgchairs what they need here, since it's about their behaviours
[06:45:28] <Eric Rescorla> I think this is a reasonable approach
[06:45:29] <Mark Nottingham> I made suggestions early on; either make it a BCP and get broad buy-in and review (which is difficult), or make it Informational with a HUGE disclaimer / positioning. Personally I don't think the proposed changes (as I understand them, haven't looked deeply) aren't helpful enough to justify the work involved in the latter, and they're not trying to do the former.
[06:45:54] <Jim Reid> when did behaviour  acquire a superfluous 's' at the end? :-)
[06:45:59] <Andrew Campling> (To help with the notes, I think the dolphin was saying something like "so long and thanks for all the fish" ;-) )
[06:46:00] <adrianfarrel> So it may be we "just" need to make the disclaimer huger
[06:46:18] <Bob Hinden> UPPER CASE :-)
[06:46:29] <mcr> WRONG!
[06:46:43] Corinne Cath leaves the room
[06:46:53] Corinne Cath joins the room
[06:47:35] <Rich Salz> After this week I know more about my rooomba then I ever thought I would.
[06:48:16] <Eliot Lear> @mnot: what would a HUGE disclaimer look like?
[06:48:18] <Mark Nottingham> How can we have a meaningful discussion of a document where wev'e had 0 notice/
[06:48:21] <Alissa Cooper_890> what is the document?
[06:49:11] <Lorenzo Colitti> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00.html
[06:49:40] <mcr> oh, wow. Debating UPdates would be way more fun!
[06:50:35] <mcr> Lorenzo, I'd say that secdispatch might be appropriate.
[06:50:35] Corinne Cath leaves the room
[06:50:39] Corinne Cath joins the room
[06:50:43] <mcr> for per-app-networking.
[06:51:09] <Mirja> discussing updates is always fun :-)
[06:51:10] <Alissa Cooper_890> that draft might be a candidate for discussion on architecture-discuss
[06:51:25] <Mark Nottingham> need to involve ART too, I suspect
[06:51:46] <Eric Rescorla> RTG
[06:51:56] <Mark Nottingham> maybe we should just have one DISPATCH to avoid DISPATCH shopping; give them two sessions
[06:52:14] <mcr> that document is actually rather wide ranging.
[06:52:17] <Andrew Campling> Good luck with the minutes!
[06:52:32] <Mirja> we reserve the monday for dispatch only meetings…?
[06:52:37] Greg Wood leaves the room
[06:52:45] <mcr> dispatchDISPATCH
[06:52:46] Eric Rescorla leaves the room
[06:52:47] Mark Nottingham_835 leaves the room
[06:52:48] Alissa Cooper_890 leaves the room
[06:52:48] Xiao Ma leaves the room
[06:52:48] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[06:52:48] Rich Salz leaves the room
[06:52:49] Eric Kinnear leaves the room
[06:52:50] Andrew Campling leaves the room
[06:52:50] Michael Richardson leaves the room
[06:52:50] <Mark Nottingham> Ot
[06:52:50] Oliver Borchert leaves the room
[06:52:50] Kenneth Murchison leaves the room
[06:52:51] Monika Ermert leaves the room
[06:52:52] Henrik Levkowetz leaves the room
[06:52:54] Mirja Kühlewind leaves the room
[06:52:54] Bob Hinden leaves the room
[06:52:55] Robert Sparks leaves the room
[06:52:56] Jim Reid leaves the room
[06:52:58] David Lawrence leaves the room
[06:52:58] <Mark Nottingham> It's DISPATCH all the way down...
[06:52:59] Chris Box leaves the room
[06:53:03] Mike Bishop leaves the room
[06:53:05] Bron Gondwana leaves the room
[06:53:15] Jean Mahoney leaves the room
[06:53:22] Mark Nottingham leaves the room
[06:53:25] <Mirja> let's discuss the dispatch process in gendispatch next time; that's sounds equally fun
[06:53:35] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[06:53:41] <Lorenzo Colitti> how about two-level dispatch?
[06:53:50] <Pete (in Jabber)> Malkovich, malkovich, malkovich dispatch.
[06:54:05] <Lorenzo Colitti> gendispatch would only be allowed to indicate one or more XXXdispatch groups to take the draft to
[06:54:07] Pete Resnick leaves the room
[06:54:26] Robert Wilton leaves the room
[06:54:27] Corinne Cath leaves the room
[06:55:06] RjS leaves the room
[06:55:09] David Schinazi leaves the room
[06:55:29] adrianfarrel leaves the room
[06:56:04] Peter Koch leaves the room
[06:57:28] Alessandro Amirante leaves the room
[06:57:28] Murray Kucherawy leaves the room
[06:57:28] Rüdiger Volk leaves the room
[06:57:28] Paolo Saviano leaves the room
[06:57:28] Lorenzo Colitti leaves the room
[06:57:28] Mihail Yanev leaves the room
[06:57:28] Stuart Cheshire leaves the room
[06:57:28] Jay Daley leaves the room
[06:58:15] Meetecho leaves the room
[07:02:20] mcr leaves the room
[07:20:03] DD leaves the room
[07:27:15] francesca leaves the room
[07:29:02] Mirja leaves the room
[07:30:26] alex-meetecho leaves the room
[07:33:07] DD joins the room
[07:42:01] DD leaves the room
[09:03:38] ghwood joins the room
[09:03:59] Matthew joins the room
[09:04:00] undefined joins the room
[09:45:05] DD joins the room
[09:55:59] DD leaves the room
[10:19:19] lellel joins the room
[10:23:02] lellel leaves the room
[11:08:32] Pete (in Jabber) joins the room
[12:16:25] Christian Huitema joins the room
[12:23:26] Christian Huitema leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[15:12:39] lellel joins the room
[15:14:56] lellel leaves the room
[15:52:18] lellel joins the room
[15:52:50] lellel leaves the room
[16:15:55] RjS joins the room
[18:34:22] undefined joins the room
[19:00:16] RjS joins the room
[20:34:37] RjS leaves the room
[20:43:40] Pete (in Jabber) joins the room
[21:38:06] Christian Huitema joins the room
[21:51:01] lellel joins the room
[21:52:04] lellel leaves the room
[23:53:24] Christian Huitema leaves the room
[23:55:24] lellel joins the room
[23:55:59] lellel leaves the room