Partially agree.
Just requiring a draft (that was not submitted within the meeting week) gives
you a two-week waiting period. I'm not so sure about the mailing list
requirement.
One of the best presentations-posing-as-barBoF in IETF 77 was about a traceback
experiment in Japan. They did write a draft, but I don't think there was a
mailing list, and I don't know whether such a mailing list would have helped
anyone. They only talked about what they had already done.
I guess the requirement for a mailing list depends no whether you want to
present something the IETF should (in your opinion) do, or whether you just
want to present some information.
We could have this requirement and allow ADs to waive it.
________________________________________
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Donald Eastlake
Sent: 01 August 2010 23:06
To: Joel M. Halpern
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Ad Hoc BOFs
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Joel M. Halpern
<jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
1) If there is no I-D and no mailing list, then no, you can not have a room
suitable for 50+ people.
...
+10**10
If there is no ID and no mailing list at least several weeks in advance, you
should either have a real bar BoF with a handful of appropriate people, or you
can seek opportunities to present at appropriate WG or Area meetings.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf