On 26 Jul 2013, at 21:48, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote: > > > --On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:29 -0700 SM <s...@resistor.net> > 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.
Hi John, Apologies for this. The correct draft name, and the BoF chair contacts, are now in the agenda file at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/agenda/dnssdext/ > FWIW, I also note that the posted agenda is heavily dependent on > the Chairs and mentions an "agreed charter". That means the charter agreed from the bashing of the draft charter in the previous 40 minutes, not that a charter is already agreed. > 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. True. Though the chair names are on the posters linked in the materials page, which I assume is well-advertised to newcomers as access to slides is rather important. And also on the BoF wiki, which you should know about. The names were just missing from the agenda file itself. Tim
