Re: Spam in the IETF's name?

John,

John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> --On Thursday, 20 October, 2005 12:07 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
> <brc@zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>You'll find the dix list at
>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi so it is
>>operating under IETF IPR rules and was approved by an Apps AD.
> 
> 
>>>2) Even if it is, is mass-like mailing (rather than sending
>>>to the IETF  list, the IETF-announce list, or one-on-one
>>>personal mails) a reasonable  way to recruit people?
>>
>>Well, the meeting mentioned is not an official IETF meeting to
>>the best of my
>>knowledge. But I think it's premature to call it off topic for
>>IETF lists.
> 
> 
> Brian,
> 
> There is another issue here and it may call for reexamination of
> the criteria for listing of public IETF-related mailing lists.
> 
> We periodically have a discussion about the dangers of RFCs
> being mistaken for standards.  That discussion has produced IESG
> disclaimers on independent-submission RFCs strong enough as to
> be read as IETF rejection of ideas presented when there is no
> such IETF consensus as well as proposals for even stronger
> action.  But, at least IMO, there is at least as much, and
> probably more, danger in what now appears to be a trend toward
> "meeting at IETF" announcements for meetings that have not gone
> through the BOF or WG charter/approval process.

Well, we do live in a free world and we certainly can't forbid
people from meeting in the same hotel as we do at the same time.
We do, however, pay quite close attention to ensuring that meetings
that *haven't* been sanctioned by an AD don't use the IETF's name
inappropriately. But statements such as "we are meeting in the same
hotel as the IETF" are factual, and we can't complain at factual
statements.

> 
> The criteria for such listings now include only conformance with
> the IPR rules with everything else being pretty much voluntary.
> Should we (or the IESG, or PESCI) be considering asking external
> bodies/groups who want to be listed to agree to some minimum
> [other] standards of conduct, such as not representing
> themselves as IETF activities or connected with the IETF
> standards process, either directly or through hair-splitting
> language?

I think we do that. But on the other hand, RFC 3160 (which is
of course non-normative) describes "bar BOFs" as legitimate
IETF activities, and I for one would be sad to lose that option.
So there is a fine line here.

     Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf