BoF proposals for IETF 109 (Nov 2020)

Barry Leiba <> Tue, 28 July 2020 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D493A0A8F for <>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dwCQe5VQOwL6 for <>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D71E3A0F6C for <>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t4so16910429iln.1 for <>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5xII33brYQp3dPkeMzzPVvDF7bfUuZHpyFkL/CrxBCU=; b=AZy5IPpX6Nn9OsP38PnFpe/JX4IZ0CuM8Zb2NhvUo/YKF6dFtOVfsP+Gu/JWFIqC6k kumuzc3b21RJQOAm6JS7Y7I7C0uxOOrKuzPLVeEkzGvnVVCFPPuLE4rhS67jICtsMN9s 1iDbTRcYsCS5vjrfflVkP6xmDhL8ZDoxU1X3yr9y+qHpoS/hXmNoloem4e3t3bCTVvwH E6qMY4b0vJFFWsdvyIdjhuaDOnuupCPTWlZLmM1WrmCjuwyaLQtl6IfQFe3AsLbmr2Yv WgH5Jx2eV9uZlk9TziFGf8HOrOseyKZSb62Tvzoz+CagxmoAhwwDoe5TV19PYL9lLutz Vxlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307E5kh2b3R+ruAC2IbkPptPY8w9rPgCXO6WSUwkptaRqNG8Blg Xp2mGMWiSHGJVzio/fWIMk9wXrgpq0IQ+SS4qYS06Rbm
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyzLSOj8MR/y1xRCEqdIrjAMOmZgDNi1MDjQY6JLbndFZDnfYkzEkrDq3ISfqejoLWyuq2rBh6xzswMry00zGg=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:da0e:: with SMTP id z14mr3309371ilm.275.1595957546195; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:32:13 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: BoF proposals for IETF 109 (Nov 2020)
To: IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:32:51 -0000

The IESG will be trying something with respect to BoF proposals for
IETF 109.  We have found, over time, that BoF proposals often come in
at the last moment before the deadline, without consultation with the
relevant ADs.  A result of that is that we have no time to engage with
the proponents for more information or for clarification, nor for
tuning the proposal.  Sometimes, BoF proposals that might otherwise be
approved are not approved.

What we are doing for IETF 109 is the following:
- We are leaving the deadline for BoF proposals as scheduled, 2 Oct.
- We are asking for preliminary proposals two weeks earlier, 18 Sept.
- We will use the two weeks in between to discuss the proposals with
the proponents, as necessary, so that the IESG and the IAB can better
understand what’s being proposed, and so that we can provide advice.

The preliminary proposals do not need to be detailed: we need to know
briefly what’s being proposed, who the proponents are, and whether the
BoF is meant to discuss a working group charter or not.  This should
be posted to the BoF wiki <>
and by email to the IESG <>rg>.  There’s still two weeks,
until the normal deadline, to develop the detailed proposal.

We strongly encourage all BoF requestors to submit preliminary
proposals.  We hope that this will result in fewer surprises, both to
the IESG and IAB and to those making BoF proposals.

Barry, for the IESG