Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF
John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net> Sat, 16 November 1996 21:32 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa07357; 16 Nov 96 16:32 EST
Received: from ietf.org by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13200; 16 Nov 96 16:32 EST
Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa07350; 16 Nov 96 16:32 EST
Received: from ns.jck.com by ietf.org id aa07344; 16 Nov 96 16:32 EST
Received: from white-box.jck.com ("port 2058"@white-box.jck.com) by a4.jck.com (PMDF V5.1-3 #16053) with SMTP id <0E0ZFSINY00HWP@a4.jck.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 16:31:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 16:31:29 -0500
Sender: iesg-request@ietf.org
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
Subject: Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF
In-reply-to: <RM:c0d83d13.0013c60f.0>
X-Orig-Sender: klensin@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, Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Message-id: <SIMEON.9611161629.F@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 13:17:49 -0800 (PST) stef@nma.com wrote: > Sounds kind stiff to me, to not even allow iinformation about related > events to be made visible at the meeting, or in IETF-Announce, or any other > recoginzed IETF communication channel. > > Perhaps you do not mean to imply such a draconian reading;-)...\Stef Stef, There is a slippery slope here and I'd encourage a more liberal reading as soon as I understand how to characterize the "Agents" effort in a way that makes it different. We've had several attempts or incidents in the past in which groups that have not gone through any of the IETF review processes have wanted to co-locate meetings with IETF. In the eyes of sloppy publicists or reporters, "co-locate" often spills over into "co-sponsor", or "presented and discussed at IETF", or even "IETF endorses". While I'm sure that isn't the intent here, that blurring into IETF endorsement or implicit IETF standardization of something over which IETF has no control (or much influence) has sometimes even appeared to be intentional. You will also recall that OMG is one of the organizations that has, in the past, asked IETF to endorse or standardize their technology, usually without releasing either change control or freely-available (and low or zero cost) copies of their specifications. Until we have a theory or model that distinguishes an OMG-based agent effort from these more problematic situations, I think the draconian reading is necessary and appropriate. One such model might be a liaision with OMG that would make all relevant OMG specifications and publications available to the IETF community on the same basis that RFCs are available. regards, john
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Steve Coya
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Tony Rutkowski
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF John C Klensin
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Steve Coya
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF John C Klensin
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF stef
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF John C Klensin
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF stef
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF John C Klensin
- RE: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Lewis Geer (Exchange)
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF stef
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Fred Baker
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF stef
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Harald.T.Alvestrand
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Fred Baker
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Jay