On Aug 2, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >>> In the case of the 2 BarBOFS I organized at IETF-78, in both cases >>> there were very useful contributions made by people I didn't know and >>> therefore wouldn't have invited. Even if the efforts fail (and one of >>> them was DOA and will not move forward), I am glad to have had the >>> opportunity to get to know more people in an area of interest to me. >> >> And that is why I think that these meetings would have been better served >> if presented as a presentation, rather than a bar BoF. >> >> Suppose we had a list of "non-WG presentations" with a listing like this >> >> Title: Tunneling IPSec over HTTP using XML >> Presenter: Marshall Eubanks >> Draft: draft-eubanks-ipsec-bloated-transport >> Abstract: >> For years now http has not enjoyed the benefits of XML. We are now about >> to change all that. No longer will IPsec be constrained to efficient >> formats. > > I think it's brilliant for us to talk about "poster sessions", or "lightning > talks", at IETF meetings, but we should definitely not confuse that with > "having a bar BOF" in this context...
I agree. My point is that a lot of the things listed as bar BoFs are in fact lightning talks. Take them away to their own list, and the true bar BoFs will not need to be listed on the wiki, and won't need conference rooms either. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
