In message <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070128B68C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .com>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" writes: > >What sort of manner is that, Dave? That's a serious question. There is >an open mailing list on which discussion has been taking place since the >Vancouver meeting. There is still a month to continue discussion before >Dallas. If something is too broad or not clear, please share your >thoughts on the dix list so that appropriate changes can be considered. > I think Dave has a point. It's not that there should be an active mailing list first -- ADs generally require a list and an I-D first, per RFC 2418 (a pointer to which should be in http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1bof-procedures.txt). The problem is that most people don't know about BoFs. I might be interested in tracking this one, but I learned of it only through John's voluntary posting to the IETF list. I agree with Dave -- BoFs should indeed be posted to the ietf-announce list as soon as they're approved. (By the same token, people proposing BoFs should announce their mailing lists quite widely. This one, for example, should have been sent to the SAAG list, among many other places, given the strong interest many security folks have in such issues.) --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf