Summary

  • On 8 October, the IESG approved PROCON charter version 02 and the working group remained active.
  • The new charter sets November targets for RFC2026bis and RFC2418bis submissions as BCPs, then a December target for a BCP on IETF Chair authorities.

The decision closed the charter question

The September proposal is no longer awaiting an IESG decision. The IESG’s decision log records approval of the Process Document Consolidation charter on 8 October, and the Datatracker now lists version 02 as approved, last updated that day, with the working group active. The approval came after the external-review window that closed on 4 October, but the review itself was not the decision: the IESG’s approval is the act that gives PROCON its current assignment. (IESG decision log; approved charter; 8 October announcement)

That distinction matters because a charter is a work mandate, not a new standards text. PROCON can now work against the approved scope and schedule. It has not, by that approval alone, amended RFC2026 or RFC2418, submitted a replacement, or changed what the IETF currently asks participants to do.

The calendar now points to November and December

The announcement gives two November 2026 milestones: submit RFC2026bis and RFC2418bis to the IESG as Best Current Practice documents. A third milestone, in December, is to submit a BCP document on delegation of IETF Chair authorities. The dates are month-level targets for submission, not dates on which the IESG promises to approve the documents.

The older approved charter record listed all three submissions for 30 June 2026. The new version replaces those dates with the November and December milestones. The public approval notice and charter state the new schedule but do not explain why it changed. That leaves a visible before-and-after record, not a documented account of what happened in the intervening months. (PROCON group history; 8 October announcement)

The consolidation mandate has a boundary

The two process documents are meant to gather the many RFCs that have updated RFC2026 and RFC2418, together with associated verified or “hold for update” errata. The charter says the result should record current policy accurately. The IESG announcement notes that more than 20 RFCs have changed the two foundational texts, which is the administrative problem the consolidation is meant to address.

The assignment is not purely editorial. PROCON may also consider non-editorial changes to how working-group charters treat milestones and how groups adopt drafts. But the charter expressly says additional subjects require rechartering. That clause makes the scope boundary part of the decision: a wider programme cannot simply be folded into the existing assignment without another approval.

Chair authority remains future work

The December item is also prospective. The charter directs PROCON to define, in a BCP, the IETF Chair’s latitude to delegate selected responsibilities voluntarily to serving Area Directors. It also calls for a temporary succession plan for the period before NomCom can fill a mid-term vacancy if the Chair cannot serve. Neither the charter nor its approval records an actual delegation or puts a succession rule into force.

For now, the observable test is procedural: whether the three planned submissions reach the IESG in the months named, and whether the work stays within the approved mandate. A submission would be a milestone reached, not a finished or effective rule. The distinction between an assigned task and an operative authority is exactly what keeps a governance calendar from being mistaken for a governance outcome.

Sources