Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF

John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net> Sun, 17 November 1996 18:40 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa19964; 17 Nov 96 13:40 EST
Received: from ietf.org by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14443; 17 Nov 96 13:40 EST
Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa19957; 17 Nov 96 13:40 EST
Received: from ns.jck.com by ietf.org id aa19951; 17 Nov 96 13:40 EST
Received: from white-box.jck.com ("port 2083"@white-box.jck.com) by a4.jck.com (PMDF V5.1-3 #16053) with SMTP id <0E112HZ6D00N64@a4.jck.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 13:39:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 13:39:33 -0500 (EST)
Sender: iesg-request@ietf.org
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
Subject: Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF
In-reply-to: <RM:c0d83d13.0013c656.0>
X-Orig-Sender: john@mail1.reston.mci.net
To: Einar Stefferud <stef@nma.com>
Cc: Steve Coya <scoya@ietf.org>, Einar Stefferud <stef@nma.com>, Tony Rutkowski <tony@netmagic.com>, iesg@ietf.org, mhtml@segate.sunet.se, fred@cisco.com, directorate@apps.ietf.org
Reply-to: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
Message-id: <SIMEON.9611171333.H@white-box.mail1.reston.mci.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1a10
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Priority: NORMAL
X-Authentication: none

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 17:24:28 -0800 (PST) stef@nma.com wrote:
>...
> Now, what about sending a notice of an AGENTS meeting, with its OMG
> sponsorship plainly stated, to the IETF-Announce mailing list, if such is
> even possible without screening by the IETF Secretariat?  Is this in or out
> of bounds?
> Seems to me that in have seen lots of non-IETF meeting announcements there.

It is, as far as I know, not possible.  IETF-Announce is supposed to 
be a moderated and highly restricted list.  Keep in mind that there 
are now two lists, and the other one is fairly open.

> Others have done better at developing other stuff, but not Internet Stuff.
> Is there any harm in other people learning how to do good internet stuff?
> 
> And if there is no harm, what should IETF do if such a process begins to occur?
> Hopefully not throw up road blocks and try to claim or enforce 
hegemony.

If that is what is happening, I see no problem at all.   The issues 
arise when the work goes into a consortium that has policies that 
encourage things like:

  -- restricted distribution of documents and working materials
  -- listening only to the paying members, with no real 
      procedures for soliciting and listening to input from the 
      technical community at large.
  -- restrictions (licensing or otherwise) on the use of 
      the specifications or technology that are developed, or
      availability of specifications only at relatively high 
      prices.

Obviously, none of those constitute the IETF way of doing things.

   john