Firstly, I agree: as a general rule, to get official floor space of
any kind at the IETF venue, you SHOULD have posted a draft. If there
is no draft, that is exactly when you need a bar BOF. (Complicated joke
about the height of the bar for a bar BOF, and the drafts to be drunk,
goes here.)
Second, a number of operators' meetings have a session for "lightning
talks" with minimal formality. But in practice, we have that at most
Area Meetings - post a relevant draft, ask the ADs for a 5 minute slot,
and you usually get it.
So I'm not sure that we have a gap in our options. I'm more likely
to read a draft with an interesting title than to walk around
reading hard-copy posters.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-01-07 09:16, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
________________________________________
From: Sam Hartman [hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu]
I think the bar of producing an internet draft is low
enough. Regardless of what mechanisms we adopt to give people a chance
to try and sell their drafts, I think it is critical that we require the
drafts to be written.
________________________________________
Actually, the bar for writing an I-D is near zero, so it should not be a
barrier to presenting
any idea, no matter how half-baked. A more significant effect is that an I-D
is in text form
rather than poster form so it tends to direct the writer to a more
thought-through presentation.
But most importantly, an I-D is globally available and globally announced,
whereas a poster
session at an IETF meeting would be inherently limited to those physically
present, which is biased
toward frequent attendees, those with sponsorship from large organizations,
and those from the
developed world. Historically, the IETF has tried to limit biases in favor
of those groups.
Dale
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf