On 26 Jul 2013, at 21:48, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
--On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:29 -0700 SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
wrote:
POSH has not published a session agenda. However, the BoF is
listed on the meeting agenda. Is the BoF cancelled or will
this be one of those willful violations of IETF Best Current
Practices?
On a similar note, according to its agenda, the core of the
DNS-SD Extensions BOF (dnssdext) is apparently
draft-lynn-sadnssd-requirements-01. The link from the agenda
page [1] yields a 404 error and attempts to look up either
"draft-lynn-sadnssd-requirements" or the author name "lynn" in
the I-D search engine yield nothing.
Hi John,
Apologies for this. The correct draft name, and the BoF chair contacts, are now
in the agenda file at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/agenda/dnssdext/
FWIW, I also note that the posted agenda is heavily dependent on
the Chairs and mentions an "agreed charter".
That means the charter agreed from the bashing of the draft charter in the
previous 40 minutes, not that a charter is already agreed.
I am mentioning this on the IETF list only because it is another
example of the point that I (and probably SM and others) are
trying to make: If we are interested in newcomers, remote
participants without years of IETF experience, and/or increased
diversity, we should not allow these kinds of issues to become
requirements for "treasure hunts" or other sorts of obstacles in
people's paths.
True. Though the chair names are on the posters linked in the materials page,
which I assume is well-advertised to newcomers as access to slides is rather
important. And also on the BoF wiki, which you should know about. The names
were just missing from the agenda file itself.
Tim