Session Date/Time: 04 Nov 2025 16:30

PROCON

Summary

The PROCON session covered updates and open issues for the 2026bis (Internet Standards Process) and 2418bis (Working Group Guidelines) documents, as well as a discussion on the IETF Chair Delegation document by Lars Eggert. Key themes included aligning existing documents with current IETF reality, removing outdated operational details, and clarifying process aspects while adhering to the working group's charter scope. A significant portion of the meeting addressed the proposed IETF Chair Delegation document, where there was no consensus on the path forward regarding its adoption versus a prior rechartering of the working group.

Key Discussion Points

2026bis - Internet Standards Process v3.1 (Rich Salz)

Progress since Madrid: Document adopted by WG, moved to GitHub, editorial cleanup, and minor semantic changes.
- All IETF stream documents (informational, experimental) must meet IPR requirements.
- IESG is responsible for moving "draft status" documents forward or deleting them.
Open Issues (GitHub issue numbers):
- Issue 43 (Random Editorial Nits): Minor textual fixes; Rich will post PRs to the list for review.
- Issue 41 (WG Mailing Lists): The LLC is responsible for maintaining mailing lists and archives; text will be updated to reflect this.
- Issue 39 (IETF Trust Renaming): The IETF Trust is being renamed; this issue will remain open until March to reflect the new name (e.g., IETF Intellectual Property Management Corporation).
- Issue 26 (New Category for Process Docs): Proposal for a new document category (e.g., "ST, standard, proc").
  - Consensus: This is considered out of charter and will not be pursued in this WG. The item will be tagged for future work.
- Issue 37 (Internet Drafts Discussion Outdated): The existing text is largely obsolete (e.g., referring to WWWs, draft expiry).
  - Discussion: Strong consensus to remove non-conceptual, operational details. Principles include: remove text if nothing breaks, point to existing external documents (e.g., RFC 5378 for contributions), or move to informational documents/web pages if specific operational guidance is needed. The goal is to make the standards-track document timeless and conceptual.
- Issue 42 (RFC Editor / Document Status): Update text to reflect that IESG, not the RFC Editor, sets the status (BCP, Experimental, Informational) during review.
  - Discussion: Clarified that all IETF stream documents now undergo IETF consensus and Last Call, blurring previous distinctions.
  - IAB BCPs: Mia Kulovan raised an issue that IAB BCPs are published on the IAB stream but require IETF consensus. The document currently implies BCPs are IETF stream documents.
  - Action Item: Mia Kulovan to open a new issue for clarifying the handling and stream for IAB BCPs.
- Issue 44 (Internet Standard Phrasing): Discussion needed on list regarding the use of "Internet Standard" vs. "standard" and potential fuzziness between Proposed Standard and Internet Standard.
- Issue 38 (Appeals Process - AD Delegation): Clarify that Area Directors (ADs) can delegate or assign an individual AD to handle the first level of an appeal, addressing confusion where appellants expect all ADs to respond. Proposed text will be needed.
- Issue 35 (Public Records / Private Discussions): Text stating "everything is available" leads to misinterpretations about private discussions.
  - Consensus: Clarify that the decisions and records of decisions must be public, but not necessarily all discussions that lead to them. The text should reflect current reality without creating "bad law" by over-interpreting.

2418bis - Working Group Guidelines (David Schinazi)

Progress: David Schinazi joined as co-author. Initial draft was a carbon copy of individual draft.
- Changes: Removed sample charter appendix, replaced conflict of interest text with a pointer to 2026bis, clarified IAB liaison wording.
Milestones (Issue 26): (Previously discussed in Madrid, PR merged).
- Decision: Milestones are now optional for working groups, at the discretion of the responsible Area Director. The granularity of milestones can be adjusted. This update reflects current practice where long-running WGs may not need strict milestones, while new WGs benefit from them. It also allows WG Chairs, with AD approval, to update milestones without requiring further AD approval for each change.
- Discussion: John Scudder expressed concern about potentially hindering ADs' ability to manage or shut down underperforming WGs. The current text aims to retain AD control while simplifying process for successful WGs. Lars Eggert suggested removing milestone requirements from the document entirely, moving it to IESG guidance, as it doesn't materially affect the standards process.
Open Issues:
- Issue 36 (Adoption Calls): 2418 doesn't explicitly reference working group adoption calls, which are a common practice.
  - Consensus: The document should mention adoption calls as a common, non-mandatory practice, without prescribing too much detail. Transparency in adoption calls is recommended.
- Issue 27 (Virtual BOFs): 2418 talks about BOFs happening at IETF plenary meetings and has a 2-BOF limit. Virtual interim BOFs have become common.
  - Consensus: Remove text implying BOFs only happen at plenary meetings. The 2-BOF limit should apply to all BOFs, regardless of virtual or physical format. Distinguishing between a BOF and a side meeting is important. The exact limit (2) is out of scope for this document to change.
- Issue 28 (Disruptive Behavior): 2418 currently constrains chairs' ability to handle disruptive behavior.
  - Discussion: Update the document to reflect increased disruption and give chairs more tools/flexibility. Reference the MODPOD working group's output for additional moderation tools and processes. Reiterate that chairs are responsible for setting the means for discussion and debate.
- Issue 29 (Working Group Facilitator Role): This role is mentioned in 2418 but has not been used in recent memory.
  - Discussion: Split opinions on whether to remove it (as unused and potentially confusing) or keep it (as a potential tool, especially given MODPOD outcomes).
  - Action Item: To be discussed further on the mailing list.
- Issue 30 (Design Teams): Design teams are used regularly but are only briefly mentioned in 2418.
  - Discussion: Consideration of formalizing design teams, especially concerning IPR policies and clear contribution attribution.
  - Action Item: David Schinazi to propose text.

IETF Chair Delegation Document (Lars Eggert)

Motivation: The IETF Chair role has accumulated many responsibilities, leading to overload and creating a single point of failure. Current RFCs limit delegation, often for roles the Chair should do. There's no defined emergency stand-in procedure.
Proposal: Separate the IETF Chair role from implicitly overlaid roles (e.g., IESG Chair, IAB member, Gen AD). Define an emergency stand-in procedure: IAB Chair, then IETF LLC Chair. Delegation, in the current draft, is limited to other IESG members (chosen by NOMCOM, already informed). Lars argues against delegating to IAB members due to historical separation of IAB from the standards process.
Key Discussion Points:
- Delegation Scope: Rich Salz initially suggested IESG and IAB, but withdrew this to align with Lars' reasoning for IESG members only (due to NOMCOM selection and prior context).
- Mia Kulovan: Proposed that emergency fallback should split the Chair's roles (IESG/Gen AD roles stay with IESG/ADs, others could go to IAB Chair). Delegation should remain with NOMCOM-selected individuals to prevent "campaigning as teams."
- John Scudder: Suggested a "radical alternative" to address the core problem of an overloaded Chair: split the job by creating a separate "General AD" position, rather than just delegation. This would require rethinking the job description itself.
- Working Group Path Forward: Chairs (Leslie and Yari) proposed to first seek adoption of the current document as a working group item, then consider rechartering for broader delegation (e.g., to IAB Chair) if deemed necessary during the document's progression.
- David Schinazi: Expressed strong preference to recharter first to allow the working group to decide on the maximum possible area of delegation before adopting the document.
- Barry Leiba: Strongly objected to adopting the document before rechartering, arguing the order matters given the potential for charter limitations.
- Roman Danyliw (AD): Stated that he would not block discussions that are outside the current charter's strict interpretation, and any blocking for "out of scope" would likely occur at Working Group Last Call. He suggested adopting the document first and addressing charter needs concurrently to "go faster."
- Mia Kulovan: Argued the working group should not be limited in discussion by the charter if the chairs are flexible.
- Yari: Reiterated that rechartering first would require a concrete proposal for charter text, which doesn't exist yet, making adoption first a more pragmatic approach to identify specific needs.

Decisions and Action Items

2026bis (Internet Standards Process v3.1):
- DECISION: Issue 26 (new category for process docs) is out of charter and will not be pursued.
- DECISION: For Issue 37 (outdated Internet Drafts discussion), the WG will move to remove non-conceptual/operational text, point to external documents, or create new informational documents if needed, making the standards-track document conceptual.
- ACTION ITEM: Mia Kulovan to open a new issue regarding the handling and stream for IAB BCP documents (related to Issue 42).
- ACTION ITEM: Rich Salz to draft PRs for Issues 43, 41, 38, 35, and 42 (incorporating discussion points) and post to the mailing list.
- ACTION ITEM: Issue 39 (IETF Trust renaming) remains open.
- ACTION ITEM: Issue 44 (Internet Standard phrasing) to be discussed on the mailing list.
2418bis (Working Group Guidelines):
- DECISION: PR allowing milestones to be optional at AD discretion has been merged.
- DECISION: For Issue 36 (Adoption Calls), the document will be updated to mention adoption calls as a common, non-mandatory practice.
- DECISION: For Issue 27 (Virtual BOFs), text implying BOFs only happen at plenary meetings will be removed. The 2-BOF limit applies regardless of virtual/physical format.
- ACTION ITEM: David Schinazi to draft PRs for Issues 36, 27, 28, and 30 (incorporating discussion points) and post to the mailing list.
- ACTION ITEM: Issue 29 (Working Group Facilitator Role) to be discussed further on the mailing list.
IETF Chair Delegation Document:
- NO DECISION MADE ON ADOPTION OF THE DOCUMENT. There was strong disagreement on whether to adopt the document first and then consider rechartering, or to recharter the working group first to broaden the delegation scope before attempting adoption.

Next Steps

2026bis / 2418bis: Document authors (Rich Salz, David Schinazi) to prepare and submit Pull Requests to the working group GitHub repository, addressing the discussed open issues and feedback. These PRs will be posted to the mailing list for review.
IETF Chair Delegation Document: The PROCON chairs will continue the discussion on the mailing list to determine the path forward for the IETF Chair Delegation document, specifically addressing whether to pursue adoption of the current draft or to explore rechartering the working group to allow for a broader scope of delegation.
- Mia Kulovan is encouraged to provide a detailed proposal for a split fallback in emergency delegation.
- John Scudder is encouraged to elaborate on his "radical alternative" proposal for potentially splitting the IETF Chair's job.