Re: The growing number of "x402" documents

--On Monday, May 25, 2026 15:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson
<[email protected]> wrote:

> John C Klensin <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>> Authors, I'm not against this -- I have no opinion at all-- but
>> would like to avoid wasting a lot of everyone's time on what
>> appear to be rather detailed specs unless the IETF wants to take
>> this work on.  I also think we should avoid even the possibility
>> of an appearance that publication of Internet-Drafts implies IETF
>> endorsement of the work. I assume the latter is not your intent,
>> but none of us can control the behavior of others.
> 
> I find this argument interesting - are you saying the IETF should
> stop accepting open publication of I-D documents?

No.  Not going to go that far.   But, with the latest revisions to
these documents and despite my optimistic comment above, they are
looking increasingly like an attempt to portray something as
IETF-endorsed and approved documents without any serious attempt to
get that approval.  If that is not the case (and I still hope it is
not), a note --to this list or an appropriate DISPATCH one-- from the
authors or from x402 (see below) would be helpful and, at least by
me, appreciated.  If it is the case, I have no idea what to do about
it under our existing procedures, but it might be time to start
thinking about that.
 
> There is certainly a trend to restrict contributions to the IETF
> only for pre-approved topics/content going on, so limiting I-D's to
> be approved by the IESG seems to harmonize with that effort.

As implied by the above, I hope not, if only because it would take us
several steps further along the path toward IESG-as-rulers rather
than the more traditional roles of "steering" and determiners of
community consensus after the community is consulted.  And, as I
suggested, I don't think the IESG needs, or wants, the extra work
although I suppose I could be wrong about that.

> Could x402 offer a IETF liaison to mediate the interactions?  See
> https://www.ietf.org/about/liaisons/ for the process.

That would be, IMO, a very helpful move, especially so if x402 is
really a party to these efforts.  If they are somehow an end run
around x402 processes, that would be even more troubling.  

    john