Subject: [Gendispatch] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-gendispatch-01-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 22:10:35 -0800

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-gendispatch-01-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-gendispatch/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed new work may be deferred in cases where GENDISPATCH does not
    have enough information for the chairs to determine consensus. New work
    may be rejected in cases where there is not sufficient interest in
    GENDISPATCH or the proposal has been considered and rejected in the
    past, unless a substantially revised proposal is put forth, including
    compelling new reasons for accepting the work.

Can work be rejected because the WG thinks it is a bad idea?  (Is that
supposed to be part of "not sufficient WG interest"?)

    The existence of GENDISPATCH does not change the IESG's responsibilities
    and discretion as described in RFC 3710. Work related to the IAB, IETF
    LLC, IRTF, and RFC Editor processes is out of scope.

It's a little bit hard to square "out of scope" with a willingness to
request that those bodies consider taking up work on a given topic.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 09:33:01 -0600

That has always been my assumption.

> request that those bodies consider taking up work on a given topic.

This might need some clarification: The distinction here is that 
proposals to change IAB, LLC, IRTF, or RFC Editor processes are not 
appropriate to bring to GENDISPATCH. However, proposals that seem like 
they might be appropriate for IETF work and are brought to GENDISPATCH 
can always be determined by the WG to be either (a) process changes to 
one of the aforementioned groups and therefore the proposer is pointed 
to the appropriate place; or (b) work that theoretically *could* be done 
at an IETF level but might be better handled by one of the other groups. 
For the latter, think of someone proposing a new document to 
update/replace section 7 of 2026 on external standards and 
specifications. After some discussion, GENDISPATCH decides that in order 
to work on the proposal, discussion really needs to be had with the IAB 
regarding their liaison role, and that discussion might end up changing 
the very nature of the update needed to 2026, or might even eliminate 
it. GENDISPATCH could dispatch the entire discussion to the IAB, and at 
a later date the IAB might come back and say, "Nothing for the IETF 
here" or "We're done; now IETF needs to update its documents."

Does the current text need clarification to capture that?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 17:26:22 +0200

Hi,

based on what Pete wrote, my suggestion is to replace:

> Work related to the IAB, IRTF, and RFC Editor processes is out of scope.

with

  Work related to the IAB, IRTF, and RFC  Editor processes are out of scope,
  but when discussions in GENDISPATCH identify such work items, they can
  be suggested to those bodies for action.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:43:01 -0500

Antitrust law applies to all anticompetitive behavior irrespective of 
the body.  It is unclear why the guidelines would not be equally 
applicable to all these bodies.

--amr

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 19:06:42 +0200

Hi Tony,

On 2021-12-15, at 18:43, Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Antitrust law applies to all anticompetitive behavior irrespective of the body.  It is unclear why the guidelines would not be equally applicable to all these bodies.

this thread is about the gendispatch rechartering, not draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust.

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 17:33:42 -0800

>   be suggested to those bodies for action.

That seems like it would reduce my confusion, and seems reasonable to me.

Thanks,

Ben

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 16:18:46 +0200

> That seems like it would reduce my confusion, and seems reasonable to me.

Thanks. I just submitted charter-ietf-gendispatch-01-02, which has that change.

Lars