Speaking as only 1/15th of the ADs, who may need more diet coke before making sense ...
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We hoping to add a replaced-by feature to the datatracker to help people track these name changes. The tools team is looking for a volunteer to write the code...
The other minor point is that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418#section-2.4 is still the relevant BCP, and has an absolute prohibition against approving a third BOF..
Some BOF proponents have an incentive to change names, to route around that blockage.
Other BOF proponents have an incentive to change names, if a BOF was not approved, and then resubmitted with a significant scope change.
One might wonder whether that's reflecting reality or just improving the marketing layer of the protocol stack.
We could talk, as a community, about whether we're making the "where did this start out?" problem worse than it needs to be.
We could also talk, as a community, about why https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418#section-2.4 thinks second BOFs are exceptional, but one can look through the history on https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki and think about how often we create a WG with only one BOF, or without a BOF at all..
I'm stepping down from the IESG next March, no chance of not, and would LOVE for us to be better at getting new work proposals evaluated and, one hopes, chartered when that is the right thing to happen, before I step down. I've thought that was the most important part of my job since I joined the IAB in 2010, and I'm trying ...
But I'm speaking only for myself on this, of course.
You can speak for yourself here, or accost me in the hallway, or accost your AD of choice, whether via hallway or e-mail.
Spencer
Russ
> On Mar 19, 2018, at 6:07 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> I was looking for the ANIMA, IETF-90 (Toronto) slides.
> IETF91 was the earliest... aha, it was a BOF in Toronto... and finally
> I realized it was called UCAN when it was a BOF.
>
> Is there some reason why we do not keep the same database entry
> so that BOF materials that lead to a WG can be seen on the materials
> and agenda page for the WG?
>
> If there is some reason the same entry is not kept, is there some pointer on
> the WG status page that points to the BOF that I've missed?
