John,
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 20 October, 2005 12:07 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
You'll find the dix list at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi so it is
operating under IETF IPR rules and was approved by an Apps AD.
2) Even if it is, is mass-like mailing (rather than sending
to the IETF list, the IETF-announce list, or one-on-one
personal mails) a reasonable way to recruit people?
Well, the meeting mentioned is not an official IETF meeting to
the best of my
knowledge. But I think it's premature to call it off topic for
IETF lists.
Brian,
There is another issue here and it may call for reexamination of
the criteria for listing of public IETF-related mailing lists.
We periodically have a discussion about the dangers of RFCs
being mistaken for standards. That discussion has produced IESG
disclaimers on independent-submission RFCs strong enough as to
be read as IETF rejection of ideas presented when there is no
such IETF consensus as well as proposals for even stronger
action. But, at least IMO, there is at least as much, and
probably more, danger in what now appears to be a trend toward
"meeting at IETF" announcements for meetings that have not gone
through the BOF or WG charter/approval process.
Well, we do live in a free world and we certainly can't forbid
people from meeting in the same hotel as we do at the same time.
We do, however, pay quite close attention to ensuring that meetings
that *haven't* been sanctioned by an AD don't use the IETF's name
inappropriately. But statements such as "we are meeting in the same
hotel as the IETF" are factual, and we can't complain at factual
statements.
The criteria for such listings now include only conformance with
the IPR rules with everything else being pretty much voluntary.
Should we (or the IESG, or PESCI) be considering asking external
bodies/groups who want to be listed to agree to some minimum
[other] standards of conduct, such as not representing
themselves as IETF activities or connected with the IETF
standards process, either directly or through hair-splitting
language?
I think we do that. But on the other hand, RFC 3160 (which is
of course non-normative) describes "bar BOFs" as legitimate
IETF activities, and I for one would be sad to lose that option.
So there is a fine line here.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf