In message
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070128B68C(_at_)dul1wnexmb01(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn
.com>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" writes:
What sort of manner is that, Dave? That's a serious question. There is
an open mailing list on which discussion has been taking place since the
Vancouver meeting. There is still a month to continue discussion before
Dallas. If something is too broad or not clear, please share your
thoughts on the dix list so that appropriate changes can be considered.
I think Dave has a point. It's not that there should be an active
mailing list first -- ADs generally require a list and an I-D first,
per RFC 2418 (a pointer to which should be in
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1bof-procedures.txt). The problem is that
most people don't know about BoFs. I might be interested in tracking
this one, but I learned of it only through John's voluntary posting to
the IETF list. I agree with Dave -- BoFs should indeed be posted to
the ietf-announce list as soon as they're approved. (By the same
token, people proposing BoFs should announce their mailing lists quite
widely. This one, for example, should have been sent to the SAAG list,
among many other places, given the strong interest many security folks
have in such issues.)
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf