**Session Date/Time:** 24 Jul 2026 09:30

[00:00:44] **Mark Nottingham**: Oh, yeah.

[00:00:44] **Harald Alvestrand**: It's about time. But

[00:00:46] **Mark Nottingham**: it's gonna be Mhmm. I

[00:00:56] **Harald Alvestrand**: can't see many people in the room.

[00:00:58] **Mark Nottingham**: Oh, we can barely fit everyone in. Yeah. Their seat's still over here.

[00:01:05] **Harald Alvestrand**: Is there anybody out there? So I see what there's one camera showing one person sitting at the back back of the room, and one camera showing nobody at the front desk.

[00:01:32] **Mark Nottingham**: Yeah. Who's you want me to sit at the front desk? I can do that.

[00:01:34] **Harald Alvestrand**: Okay. There you go. You're welcome.

[00:01:39] **Mark Nottingham**: We could all almost sit at the front desk. I was supposed to say.

[00:01:43] **Harald Alvestrand**: Oh, yeah. So this is kind of my once once per IETF checkup of status that to check that any if anyone's read the documents in the last month or so. So let's get the preliminary result of the way. Nope. Well, anyone's service deep enough in IETF to have have found this session? Probably not probably knows this by heart. Meeting tips, sim similar. Again, you haven't seen this slide before because I made it up, like, half an hour ago. Oh, you might have seen the agenda. So and the important thing about the working group at the moment, well, is that we need a spread. That's that's nice thing about putting stuff like that on the agenda. I kinda remember. So any anyone willing willing to say to write down write down his what we decided, if anything?

[00:03:29] **Jonathan Lennox**: Are

[00:03:32] **Andy Newton**: you you're looking for scribe? Is that what you're looking for?

[00:03:34] **Harald Alvestrand**: Yep.

[00:03:36] **Andy Newton**: I don't know. Murray?

[00:03:42] **Harald Alvestrand**: Alright. Was that Marie volunteering? Or That

[00:03:49] **Jonathan Lennox**: was Marie being volunteered by Brett.

[00:03:51] **Brent**: I offered to do it. I

[00:03:53] **Andy Newton**: Yeah. Brett's gonna

[00:03:54] **Harald Alvestrand**: do it.

[00:03:54] **Brent**: End of the day to drive. They gotta get there. Don't make any decisions yet.

[00:04:00] **Harald Alvestrand**: No. I can't hear people speaking in the room very well.

[00:04:04] **Andy Newton**: Brent's gonna do it.

[00:04:05] **Harald Alvestrand**: Brent's gonna do it.

[00:04:06] **Andy Newton**: Yeah. He just he just needs to give a have a minute to get in. So

[00:04:15] **Harald Alvestrand**: yeah. So my agenda says that and that we report from ianabis. Just checking checking that we are still happy with that status. And and, again, the item saying status of 6838bis and review as checklist charter review recommendations for changes to charter and wrap up. Shall we get on with it, or do you want to match the agenda?

[00:04:48] **Andy Newton**: We're all good.

[00:04:54] **Harald Alvestrand**: So, one question. Did Mark make it to the meeting, or is he stuck in the other one?

[00:05:00] **Andy Newton**: He's right here.

[00:05:01] **Harald Alvestrand**: Oh oh. Hey, Mark. Good to see you.

[00:05:04] **Mark Nottingham**: I have a strong incentive to sit down, but since you can't see me, I'll stand up.

[00:05:09] **Harald Alvestrand**: Oh, yeah. Oops. I lost the slides.

[00:05:12] **Andy Newton**: Sorry. I did that. Sorry.

[00:05:15] **Harald Alvestrand**: Okay. All the slots for the request of media. That's why I didn't think it. Okay. But no. Mark, what do you think of of ianabis?

[00:05:23] **Mark Nottingham**: Did you did you sit in on it?

[00:05:27] **Harald Alvestrand**: Harald? And I I can't see your your slides some somehow.

[00:05:32] **Mark Nottingham**: Oh, I don't have slides.

[00:05:34] **Harald Alvestrand**: No. What did you do?

[00:05:37] **Mark Nottingham**: So I added this. I presented my draft, which was the registration sub policies for specification required, and and there are three there. One is a a constraint specification required to be based upon a recognized standards organization. One of them is is kind of an open season, a permissive policy, and the middle one is a community based policy, which is based upon what we've put into 6838bis. And ianabis discussed it. It seems like there's interest in in going in that direction, although, of course, you know, discussion still needs to happen. People were talking about other potential policies and modifications to those. So we obviously need to talk through the implications. There's not a formal call for adoption yet, but I I my perception was that we'll we'll have one relatively soon. So so in general, there was agreement that this was an interesting problem to try and and and address. What that means for us, I think, is unclear. We could either pause our work and wait for them to conclude and then refer to that document, or we could just, you know, go with with our text and act as an early canary for that. Although if we wanted to change it or we wanted to adopt the the the other policy down the road, conceivably, we'd need to do a specification update. I do think I did make some some modifications to the policy. I I didn't just cut and paste. I I did a couple of adjustments when I took it to that separate draft, and we might wanna consider adopting some of those changes because they were the basis of some further thinking and experience.

[00:07:18] **Brent**: Just got it.

[00:07:19] **Harald Alvestrand**: You have all of that.

[00:07:21] **Andy Newton**: It's just

[00:07:21] **Harald Alvestrand**: very good.

[00:07:22] **Brent**: Give me about 2¢.

[00:07:23] **Mark Nottingham**: All good. Okay. I I do I I do think you know, I I've been trying to kind of informally institute the community kind of approach on the registries that I the specification required registries that I am expert for. Well known URIs, for example, because that registry right now is under a fair amount of pressure. The one thing I'll note is is that it does require the expert to exercise some discretion and and to do some work in that, you know, if you get a request from a community that you recognize intuitively as being, yes, this is a a vital community. And, of course, we should register their value of whatever foo. That makes a lot a lot of sense and is very easy, but there are some cases where you get a, registration request from something you've never heard of before, and it's very hard to tell whether it's a vital community or it's just one or two guys who decided to pop up a website and get a registration because they want to say that they have the stamp of approval from the IETF. And that's a lot harder, and it definitely you know, as an expert, you you you have to think about that and do some work. Now personally, I think it's much better to have an RFC behind you saying this is the process and these are the the things that you're being measured on, as an expert rather than just kinda yellowing it, which is effectively what I'm doing right now. So I I don't think that's a reason not to do a community process. I just think you need to go into it with your eyes open.

[00:09:03] **Jonathan Lennox**: Jonathan Lennox, at ianabis, there was some sentiment, and maybe this is just my sentiment, but, you know, that's that I'm some.

[00:09:09] **Mark Nottingham**: That's

[00:09:11] **Jonathan Lennox**: that rather than this being then this being, like, an explicit enumeration of there's this policy and this policy and this policy, it's more sort of guidance of here are some options of things that you could write when you're writing expert review rules. And, you know, you could try one of these, but you should write it down explicitly in your IANA expert instructions. And I feel like even before your draft is even if your draft isn't by ianabis, this group could do that regardless. But write down its instructions

[00:09:39] **Mark Nottingham**: for Absolutely.

[00:09:40] **Jonathan Lennox**: We think this should be a community process, and here's what our guidance to the ex to the expert reviewers. Nice.

[00:09:46] **Mark Nottingham**: And and and, yeah, maybe that kind of answers it for us because, honestly, I I prefer it to be explicit sub policies that people can adopt by reference because in my experience, a lot of groups don't go to the trouble to write all this down even if you tell them, hey. You should consider all of this. And so, you know, making it as easy as possible for groups is kind of the aim there. But this group seems obviously willing to do the work, so maybe we should just go ahead and do the work, you know, and and write it down ourselves. I I don't know. Maybe the the question for us to answer is imagine a a a potential future where we have our documented policy, and then there is the IANA official whatever you know, this is how you do this, you know, sub policy or however it ends up in that document. Is it the end of the world if there's a slight divergence between what what we've written and what they've written? I to my mind, the only argument there, which is not trivial, but the only argument there is that people, especially outside the IETF who register things in multiple registries when there are very slight differences between those policies, it confuses them, and it creates friction. And I I do see evidence of that. In this case, I'm not super worried about it.

[00:10:57] **Harald Alvestrand**: My kind of take is that my my kind of thinking is that that's it's nice to be convergent, but keeping the group open for another year while we're waiting for ianabis to do that is kinda not optimal.

[00:11:15] **Mark Nottingham**: Yeah. Agreed. Yeah. So I think it sounds like maybe our our path forward is just to review the specification the the community policy once more. I'll make some I'll make maybe a pull request to update it based upon the the most recent changes I made in the other document. We'll talk through a little bit more, and then we can continue. That makes sense?

[00:11:43] **Harald Alvestrand**: Yeah. And, Andy, since you managed to present the slides, can you advance it

[00:11:49] **Andy Newton**: too?

[00:12:07] **Harald Alvestrand**: So in in I looked at the other dependencies that we had, and it seems like we that we're okay with them. The other thing that they suggested adopting was the the standards organization registry, the the list of and which they they wanted to grandfather in. So, Mark, does that require an update in in our documents?

[00:12:39] **Mark Nottingham**: I'm I'm not sure. I think they're gonna repurpose that as I understand it to that list, the the list of recognized SDOs.

[00:12:47] **Andy Newton**: I have no idea. Yeah.

[00:12:49] **Harald Alvestrand**: So I yeah. That that's what the document said. But I don't think we actually have that registry explicitly. We just say that they the IESG approves the SDOs. So we're okay.

[00:13:03] **Mark Nottingham**: I I also as I understand it, my sense of the room in ianabis was that there was a little disagreement on this in in that whether whether to if if we adopt my document, whether to fold it into the 8126bis, whether to keep it a separate document. And, certainly, IANA expressed a preference to keep it separate. I kind of am sympathetic to that because I think it's gonna need some discussion and perhaps evolution. And so you don't wanna have to, you know, do a bis on whatever falls eighty one twenty six every time you do that. And if that's the case, I I'm I'm not a 100% sure of this, but I think 8126 and and 7120, this might ship relatively soon. So we probably we probably need to coordinate with them about you know? If if if they are gonna ship soon, then, yeah, we do need to resolve these relationships. If they're not gonna ship soon, we can just ship.

[00:14:04] **Jonathan Lennox**: Ted requested publication for 7120bis this morning.

[00:14:07] **Mark Nottingham**: Oh, there you go then. Okay. So let I think we probably just need to take a pass through our document and look at the state of that document and make sure it's lined up well.

[00:14:16] **Harald Alvestrand**: Yeah. So at in some sense, and I think we had a decision that we would take a dependency on 8126bis. So we're so we're basically saying that we that we accept that we won't get published before they get out. Okay.

[00:14:37] **Mark Nottingham**: So it sounds like the tasks are to review our community process and and update it, but not depend upon whatever happens in there. And then update for the latest changes in eighty one twenty six bis and 7120bis. And then we're done?

[00:14:57] **Harald Alvestrand**: I think so.

[00:14:59] **Mark Nottingham**: That's a good thing.

[00:15:01] **Brent**: So the two tasks that are update community process in our document and update things according to 8126bis.

[00:15:07] **Mark Nottingham**: And 7120bis. Yeah.

[00:15:09] **Andy Newton**: Take a dependency on those too.

[00:15:11] **Mark Nottingham**: Yeah. Make sure that and make sure that the relationship is is solid.

[00:15:15] **Jonathan Lennox**: Sorry? Excited explicitly.

[00:15:17] **Mark Nottingham**: They are already excited explicitly, but, yeah, just just making sure we we track their changes and and and account for all the dependencies.

[00:15:25] **Harald Alvestrand**: Yep. So and we can go to next slide. I think that's I think that's okay. Last update is October 9, so it's been a while. But, Mark, you're on top of this.

[00:15:48] **Mark Nottingham**: Okay. So I'll do those things, circulate them on the list, and then maybe you can kick off a I think we've already had one working group last call. Do you feel like we need another?

[00:15:59] **Harald Alvestrand**: Think we need another working group last call. Okay. Just for for for my sake. Once once you think that you have folded in all the all the change because it's always nicer if we can have a working your last call on what we actually want it, to send to the.

[00:16:14] **Mark Nottingham**: I'll ping you when I think we're ready.

[00:16:16] **Harald Alvestrand**: Good. Okay. Next. Yes. Next slide, Anthony. Yep. Review as checklists. I and the previous consensus to that to start from the IANA registry page, keep using that as publication based, and this then the the this is main basically maintained by the designated expert. IESG has oversight as usual with the IESG in cooperation with IANA, but we have had no suggested changes to the to the checklist. So I suggest that we just close this as completed and saying that, yep, we're okay with this date as this.

[00:17:15] **Andy Newton**: That sounds wonderful.

[00:17:19] **Harald Alvestrand**: Good riddance.

[00:17:21] **Andy Newton**: Good riddance. Next. There we go.

[00:17:25] **Harald Alvestrand**: So I think we're done with the charter when we're when we're waiting when we ship the 6838bis off to off to the off to the IESG. Does this rating have have working group consensus? Just say yes.

[00:17:45] **Mark Nottingham**: Yes. Yes. So

[00:17:48] **Harald Alvestrand**: we're waiting for wait waiting for ianabis. Let's see. We'll see if we'll we'll have to reconfirm that in Seattle. And once that's done, once we're in sync and we'll do the work group last call and shipping to the IESG and have IETF last call, and then we can close the work group.

[00:18:09] **Andy Newton**: More yes. The I I have a question on the milestones. So, I think we just, I'm looking at the data tracker and the the milestones in there. So I think we just said the published reviewers checklist, either as an RC or Wiki page. We're we're not doing that. Right?

[00:18:26] **Harald Alvestrand**: Right. We're we're saying that we're saying that the that the cut the current, IANA page is, good enough, Ricky.

[00:18:35] **Andy Newton**: Alright. And then there's a milestone on recommendations about future registration and queue management. Is that old? Is that something that we should just talk about? Or

[00:18:46] **Harald Alvestrand**: I think that was, reflecting a discussion on using GitHub for tracking registrations, and I think that was basically saying, no. We don't want to make rules for that.

[00:18:58] **Andy Newton**: Alright. So both those items are now gone. Alright. Cool.

[00:19:05] **Harald Alvestrand**: Yep. Sounds cool. I'll send a request for milestone updates.

[00:19:09] **Andy Newton**: Alright.

[00:19:12] **Harald Alvestrand**: Okay. That's the speedy meeting. I think we're done.

[00:19:17] **Andy Newton**: Alright. So, Mark, are we going through if I go back oh. Are we doing status of 6838bis for thirty minutes? Or

[00:19:37] **Mark Nottingham**: I need to go to That

[00:19:41] **Harald Alvestrand**: was that was two minutes. I to that was the that slide.

[00:19:45] **Andy Newton**: Just making sure. Alright, Harald. You can wrap us up. Send us home.

[00:19:52] **Harald Alvestrand**: Yep. Thank you all for coming.

[00:19:55] **Andy Newton**: Thank you.

[00:19:56] **Harald Alvestrand**: All 12 of you. We'll have a bigger room next time, I'm sure.

[00:20:01] **Andy Newton**: Yeah. Twelve.

[00:20:02] **Mark Nottingham**: This is

[00:20:03] **Harald Alvestrand**: Take care. Bye for now.

[00:20:06] **Andy Newton**: Alright. See you.

[00:20:12] **Mark Nottingham**: Short and sweet. I love it. It. Those are working with us.

[00:20:16] **Andy Newton**: I love that too.