Re: The growing number of "x402" documents

--On Monday, May 25, 2026 07:51 -0600 Nathanael Ritz
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 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.
> 
> "The IETF" is largely made of the participants that volunteer
> their time and insight on the mailing lists, right? If enough
> people come together and say "let's work on this together"
> then we have a clue, perhaps more so if a BoF forms. If not, then
> the outcome _should_ be self-selecting.

(Copying the authors again since I have no reason to believe they are
reading this list)

Absolutely, although I might have added "a DISPATCH discussion is
initiated" and/or there was evidence of discussion with relevant
AD(s)" to "if a BOF forms".  I am suggesting that, if the authors
want IETF involvement in this work, they should consider those
options.  Absent that, yes, no signs of interest from anyone other
than the authors would, indeed, tell us something and be
self-selecting.

_However_ using Internet-Drafts as a path for claiming something is
IETF-approved when there has not even been any real IETF discussion
can be considered an attack on IETF processes and credibility.  I
have no reason to believe that is what is going on and hope that any
appearances in that direction (including some inconsistency in the
drafts with IETF conventions) are just signs of lack of understanding
of IETF conventions and processes by the authors.  If this is all
being done in good faith and with the intention of involving the
IETF, then my comments are intended to alert the authors to those
opportunities and issues.  If not, we should at least be aware of the
possibility of such problems.
 
> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 7:31 AM Simon Josefsson <simon=
> [email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Can you share how this trend is demonstrated anywhere? Last I
> checked, an I-D of any kind, for any purpose can be pushed to the
> datatracker just fine. If someone cares to engage with one I-D or
> the other, that's a whole other case and one that is determined
> by demonstrable interest on the mailing list.

Other than one comment below, I'll let Simon comment on the trend
that he sees.  However, "demonstrable interest on the mailing list"
requires that there be an opportunity for such a discussion and/or
creation of a mailing list.   I am encouraging the authors to get
such a discussion started, either on this list or in a DISPATCH
proposal, to see if it leads anywhere, not just post a dozen or so
I-Ds with no apparent effort to engage the community.
 
> If there is a visible pattern that suggests otherwise, that would
> certainly be an interesting topic to explore but perhaps in a
> different thread, or maybe John is raising x402 as one such
> possible pattern?

To expand slightly on my response to Simon a short time ago [1], I
think there have been multiple signs in recent years of the IESG
becoming relatively more of a top-down decision-maker for the
community rather than an evaluator or bottom-up consensus.  I believe
that most, probably all, of those steps have been taken with good
intentions, typically in the interest of more efficiency.  I see that
trend as being dangerous for the IETF, not just because things are
just not set up to deal with potential abuses but because it can add
to more homogeneity of effective participation.

As far as x402 is concerned, I think it would be helpful for us to
understand where these drafts fall on some spectrum of being
complementary to x402 work, better publicizing that work, or try to
end run their processes.   Their requesting  a liaison as Simon
suggested would be, IMnvHO, very helpful in that regard.  If he and I
are not the only ones who think that would be useful, and the authors
do not take a more interactive role with the IETF (perhaps suggesting
a liaison themselves), a note from someone in an IETF leadership (or
IAB) to x402 asking for clarification might also be helpful.

best,
   john




[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/S5DMGu3dlhU7mfnRUxvCGPoCnkA