Hi, On 2015-2-25, at 16:58, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/25/15, 12:42 AM, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> It's also a bit confusing to see this advertised as an IETF hackathon >> when most of the listed technologies aren't (yet) IETF work items. > > True, and hopefully the work at the Hackathon will provide useful input > into BOFs, etc., that helps make more informed decisions about whether and > how to proceed with forming working groups. my point is that calling it an "IETF hackathon" sort of implies (at least to me) that IETF technologies would be hacked with, when in reality that's not the case in most of the listed examples. They maybe *intended* as input to the IETF, but they aren't IETF technologies (published as RFCs or at least adopted as WG work items.) Lars
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail