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the current charter would exclude making minor editorial alignments or correcting obsolete technical details (such as outdated email addresses, references to FTP, or obsolete technologies) unless explicitly updated by an RFC.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.

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. However, following feedback from Dan Bernstein, it was agreed that RFC 2026 does define a minimal public record. 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 and Jari Arkko 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 working 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:

draft-eggert-ietf-chair-standin: Focuses on establishing an emergency stand-in for the IETF Chair.
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

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

Automatic IETF Minutes