GENDISPATCH - IETF 125

Summary

The GENDISPATCH working group met at IETF 125 to discuss three proposals: guidance for authors of experimental documents, the identification of anachronisms in IETF process documents, and new security and privacy requirements for the IETF meeting network. The session focused on determining the appropriate dispatch path for these items, including AD sponsorship, mailing list discussion, or incorporation into existing working group efforts.

Key Discussion Points

1. Guidance for Authors of Experimental Documents

Presenter: Adrian Farrel Slides: Guidance for authors of Experimental Documents Draft: draft-farrel-gendispatch-experiment-guidance

Discussion: Adrian Farrel presented a proposal to provide better guidance for authors writing Experimental RFCs, emphasizing that an experiment should have a defined scope, success criteria, and termination point.
Feedback:
- Barry Leiba suggested the material might be better suited for an IETF wiki or webpage rather than an RFC to avoid it being interpreted as normative "hoops" for authors.
- Jonathan Lennox and Eric Rescorla expressed skepticism, arguing that "Experimental" often serves as a "safety valve" for documents lacking full consensus or as a way to see if a protocol gains interest, and that over-formalizing the process might be counterproductive.
- Roman Danyliw (AD) noted a lack of broad community interest to justify AD sponsorship at this time.
- Colin Perkins and Andrew Campling supported the work, noting that clearer guidance would improve the quality of experimental documents.

2. Anachronisms in IETF Process Documents

Presenter: Brian Carpenter Slides: Anachronisms in IETF Process Documents Draft: draft-carpenter-gendispatch-anachronisms

Discussion: Brian Carpenter highlighted several inconsistencies and outdated "anachronisms" in BCPs and process documents (e.g., Internet-Draft expiration reality, the convergence of Proposed and Internet Standard processes, and the lack of a "Force Majeure" clause).
Feedback:
- John Klensin agreed the work is worthy but questioned the best venue.
- Leslie Daigle (PROCON Co-Chair) and Roman Danyliw (AD) stated that the PROCON (Process Conservation) Working Group is currently chartered strictly to document current reality and editorial cleanup. Expanding the scope now would interfere with their current milestones.
- Eric Rescorla and Rich Salz supported fixing these issues but suggested waiting until the first phase of PROCON is complete or forming a "PROCON-bis" later.

3. Security Requirements for the IETF Network

Presenter: Martin Duke / Eric Rescorla Slides: Security Requirements for the IETF Network Draft: draft-duke-gendispatch-ietf-network-security

Discussion: Martin Duke presented a proposal to update IETF venue requirements to ensure the meeting network supports privacy-preserving technologies (e.g., VPNs, ECH, MASQUE) and adheres to data minimization principles (no mandatory identity-to-IP mapping). This was motivated by recent regulatory changes in certain meeting venues.
Feedback:
- Andrew Campling expressed concern that these "MUST" requirements might make it impossible to host meetings in many countries and noted that the IETF contracts with venues, not governments.
- Tommy Pauly and David Schinazi (co-authors) argued that the community needs to document its expectations for the LLC to guide venue selection.
- Colin Perkins and Lars Eggert cautioned that these requirements could severely limit venue diversity and noted that many academic or corporate networks might not even meet these standards.
- Roman Danyliw (AD) and Pete Resnick suggested the "Meeting Venue" mailing list as the appropriate forum for refining this proposal.

Decisions and Action Items

Guidance for authors of Experimental Documents: The authors (Adrian Farrel et al.) will no longer update draft-farrel-gendispatch-experiment-guidance. The material remains available for the community to incorporate into a wiki or IETF website if desired.
Anachronisms in IETF Process Documents: The issues identified in draft-carpenter-gendispatch-anachronisms will be recorded in the PROCON Working Group’s GitHub repository as candidates for a future re-chartering or a subsequent phase of process cleanup.
Security Requirements for the IETF Network: The draft draft-duke-gendispatch-ietf-network-security will be moved to the Meeting Venue mailing list for broader community discussion and refinement.

Next Steps

Meeting Venue Requirements: Roman Danyliw (AD) indicated a willingness to AD-sponsor the security requirements document once the text is polished and consensus is established on the Meeting Venue mailing list.
Process Cleanup: Brian Carpenter will keep the anachronisms draft alive as a reference for future PROCON work.

Automatic IETF Minutes