Re: funding on offer

Michael StJohns <> Sat, 08 May 2021 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61873A0FCB for <>; Sat, 8 May 2021 12:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pdrUKFOMYsdw for <>; Sat, 8 May 2021 12:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD1E53A0F01 for <>; Sat, 8 May 2021 12:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id fSySlyLM9p8dBfT4jlfxpp; Sat, 08 May 2021 19:57:21 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20190202a; t=1620503841; bh=d7A3zsvvBp7VSPy6q4g6x1UkcAo9133m/PeIz42os8Y=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=4I/mHPgtqMFO+vNeKTDKygFJUVrDeZw8iZB1G6LfefsxTbVLO2AvwdtsSoN+YJVwJ Vkt9PzhG94kalG42vvC7KsTeGL5KkiCXGRV7Ev7Yl0wT44AG8GPETOqJR99Dphm3za +raIXIs/YoGtvzF8MBwka9AWcwpnf5YUrnsNpO3+k8zrkoHEv/wFINoS8sCf8xzyTj mYtko2YNEVL7KbUZo6PxQXNUrkHph3z1pBy7Ac1L1Qhv0PxIDOc1cJs96T4Tk8WtEL WHB51gDk2M0mhUO8AZgSqP3tvG8ACBvWrv781kbHsStSlc6v3j+N7Eaqwu4oYN6W2s qEbi6PottQ5ZA==
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id fT4clL8mPzIaCfT4dlN72G; Sat, 08 May 2021 19:57:19 +0000
X-Xfinity-VAAS: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdeggedgudegjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucevohhmtggrshhtqdftvghsihdpqfgfvfdppffquffrtefokffrnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddunecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepofhitghhrggvlhcuufhtlfhohhhnshcuoehmshhtjhhohhhnshestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeeiveejheeuuddvhfevlefgleffgeehjeeihffhvedtkeekleefhefhjeeltdegnecukfhppedutdekrdehuddrvddttddrudekjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhephhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedruddrvdefngdpihhnvghtpedutdekrdehuddrvddttddrudekjedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmshhtjhhohhhnshestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehivghtfhesihgvthhfrdhorhhg
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0.00;st=legit
Subject: Re: funding on offer
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 15:57:13 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 19:57:39 -0000

I was the unnamed person who pointed out the guidelines to Jay.

These days, there are literally 100s of conferences, funding 
opportunities, committee sessions, and other standards bodies that play 
in the internet network space. (I myself get something on the order of 
1-2 invitations a month to review conference papers from wildly diverse 
conferences)   A decision was made at least 20 years ago to keep those 
off of the IETF list unless they were sponsored or endorsed by the IETF 
or ISOC to keep the focus of the list on us rather than making it yet 
another mailing list for mass solicitation.

I.e., there's a reason that ICANN DNS symposiums are announced on the 
DNSOP list rather than the IETF list.

In the instant case, the IESG  or IAB could have made the decision that 
this was an "endorsed" item and noted it as such and had Jay publish it 
on their behalf.  This wasn't what happened though.

If anyone has something that they think maybe of interest, but probably 
falls afoul of the clause cited - send it to Jay and ask him to check 
whether the IESG or IAB is willing to endorse it.  Otherwise, I hope 
you'll refrain from using the list to publicize non-IETF activities.

Later, Mike

On 5/8/2021 1:00 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> First let me say that I don't care what guidelines we use for posting 
> to the list; I think Jay's original message was probably reasonable to 
> post. I was simply responding to Andy's comment that his message 
> "certainly fits" the description of the list; it's not "certain", and 
> certainly not to the unnamed person who commented to Jay that it 
> didn't. All I meant was that we should have a real discussion about 
> whether or not it fit and write down our conclusion somewhere so that 
> we don't need to have this discussion again.
> That said:
> On 7 May 2021, at 18:48, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> The burden is on the person complaining about a message to explain 
>> why it is not okay.
> On 8 May 2021, at 6:38, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> (And, as usual, the detection of this as a charter violation created 
>> an order of magnitude more noise than the pointer itself.)
> Using words like "burden" and "charter violation" isn't helpful and 
> makes this sound like some sort of legal exercise. There are no 
> burdens of proof here; we're trying to be polite to one another and 
> have some guidelines to help people do that.
>> On 2021-05-07, at 17:26, Pete Resnick <> wrote:
>>> But it doesn't fit the IETF list charter, RFC 3005:
>>> Inappropriate postings include:
>>> - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
>>>   sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.
>> The English I learned doesn’t make an announcement of the form “here 
>> are people offering money so you can continue your IETF work” an 
>> "Announcement of conferences, events, or activities”.
> The main page that Jay pointed to looks to me, at least at first 
> glance, to be an announcement of an activity not sponsored or endorsed 
> by ISOC or the IETF. In this case, it sounds like one that it would be 
> good for IETF folks to know about, and we might agree ones like this 
> in the future should not be looked sideways at. Are we OK with all 
> Internet technology grant announcements on this list? What about job 
> opportunities?
> Again, I'm only suggesting it's a good idea to come to some agreement 
> about what's reasonable and what's not.
>> Maybe me announcing that I wrote another version of some piece of 
>> software that implements IETF protocols and plan to continue doing 
>> that, does, much more so, but nobody would complain about that.
> If it had instructions about how to buy the latest version, perhaps 
> with an "IETF Member Discount", and pointers to your other wonderful 
> products available on your website, I bet you would get complaints. :-)
>> “Considerable latitude”, as Amelia said…
> I'm all for it. So let's just decide what's reasonable and what's not.
> pr