--On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:29 -0700 SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > POSH has not published a session agenda. However, the BoF is > listed on the meeting agenda. Is the BoF cancelled or will > this be one of those willful violations of IETF Best Current > Practices? On a similar note, according to its agenda, the core of the DNS-SD Extensions BOF (dnssdext) is apparently draft-lynn-sadnssd-requirements-01. The link from the agenda page [1] yields a 404 error and attempts to look up either "draft-lynn-sadnssd-requirements" or the author name "lynn" in the I-D search engine yield nothing. If one thinks to go to the I-D search engine and enter just "draft-lynn", draft-lynn-mdnsext-requirements-02 shows up which I'm guessing is the relevant draft. FWIW, I also note that the posted agenda is heavily dependent on the Chairs and mentions an "agreed charter". The Chairs are not identified, preventing interested participants from contacting them for information (and others from contacting them about errors like the one above) and there is no link or other pointer to the proposed "agreed charter". So I am wondering why this BOF was approved, which AD is watching the BOF agenda, and why it is still on the meeting agenda? I am mentioning this on the IETF list only because it is another example of the point that I (and probably SM and others) are trying to make: If we are interested in newcomers, remote participants without years of IETF experience, and/or increased diversity, we should not allow these kinds of issues to become requirements for "treasure hunts" or other sorts of obstacles in people's paths. And, IMO, we should be especially careful about BOFs because they provide newcomers (present at the meeting or remote) good opportunities to get in at the beginning of new work items. john [1] http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/87/agenda-87-dnssdext.html