Re: dnssdext BOF (was: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87 Audio Streaming Info))
On 27 Jul 2013, at 02:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote: If I had known this was taking place I might have made the trip to Berlin. I am very interested in the problem this tries to solve. I think it is the wrong way to go about it but I am interested in the problem. The case for having some sort of local name discovery mechanism is clear in both the enterprise and the home network. The case for that discovery mechanism responding to DNS queries in the local namespace is equally clear. Thinking of this problem as how to clients configure their DNS entries is completely the wrong way to go about it. Setting up a new network service requires more than poking the DNS with a stick. Phil, comments on draft-lynn-mdnsext-requirements are very welcome. There should be a jabber realy who can forward remote comments to the mic. Tim
dnssdext BOF (was: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87 Audio Streaming Info))
--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. 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
Re: dnssdext BOF (was: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87 Audio Streaming Info))
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
Re: dnssdext BOF (was: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87 Audio Streaming Info))
--On Friday, July 26, 2013 22:48 +0100 Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: ... 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/ Tim, Many thanks. Let me stress that I didn't set out to attack you or your BOF. You just lucked out and became the first example that came in handy. See below. 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. If there is something to be bashed for those 40 minutes, I'd expect a link to at least a skeleton first draft. I note that draft charter does have a link from the meeting materials page, just not from the agenda. But, modulo the comment below, that is a matter of taste to be working out between you, Ralph, and the IESG. 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. As far as I know, the only advertisement is the link from the Agendas and Meeting Materials section of the main meeting page and the similar links from the Meetings entry on the IETF home page. Now I'd personally like to see the New Attendees category on the main meeting page changed to New Attendees and Participantes and then including a link to a page that would give hints about where these things are and how to navigate around them. But that fairly clearly won't happen before Sunday and YMMD. And also on the BoF wiki, which you should know about. Yep. I know about it and where to find it. But, as I explained in my note to Brian, I'm a lot more concerned about newcomers and remote participants without years or experience than I am about what I can find if I remember all of the reasonable places where I might look. ... Best wishes for a successful BOF. john
Re: dnssdext BOF (was: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87 Audio Streaming Info))
On 26 Jul 2013, at 23:31, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: --On Friday, July 26, 2013 22:48 +0100 Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: That means the charter agreed from the bashing of the draft charter in the previous 40 minutes, not that a charter is already agreed. If there is something to be bashed for those 40 minutes, I'd expect a link to at least a skeleton first draft. I note that draft charter does have a link from the meeting materials page, just not from the agenda. But, modulo the comment below, that is a matter of taste to be working out between you, Ralph, and the IESG. The draft charter was placed where they usually are, on the BoF wiki. But I added a link to a specific draft charter file when I updated the agenda, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/agenda/dnssdext/. The other problem for mdnsext is that the second BoF has been given a different name, for various reasons, but that does make it a bit harder to locate the mail list and draft. 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. As far as I know, the only advertisement is the link from the Agendas and Meeting Materials section of the main meeting page and the similar links from the Meetings entry on the IETF home page. Now I'd personally like to see the New Attendees category on the main meeting page changed to New Attendees and Participantes and then including a link to a page that would give hints about where these things are and how to navigate around them. But that fairly clearly won't happen before Sunday and YMMD. Well, I would certainly agree that the meeting materials page/area needs to be well advertised, if it isn't already, but I don't know what additional information newcomers are pointed at, not being one. And also on the BoF wiki, which you should know about. Yep. I know about it and where to find it. But, as I explained in my note to Brian, I'm a lot more concerned about newcomers and remote participants without years or experience than I am about what I can find if I remember all of the reasonable places where I might look. While we/you can try to guess what the problems are, it may be better to surveymonkey those who registered as newcomers in a couple of weeks and ask them about their experience, whether they were aware of certain things, and what could be done better. Tim
Re: dnssdext BOF (was: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87 Audio Streaming Info))
--On Saturday, July 27, 2013 00:37 +0100 Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: ... While we/you can try to guess what the problems are, it may be better to surveymonkey those who registered as newcomers in a couple of weeks and ask them about their experience, whether they were aware of certain things, and what could be done better. I hope that the mentoring program and assorted ask me dots will take care of any of these issues for anyone who is in Berlin. If those newcomers have problems finding these things, I hope they will bug someone. If they do and can't get answers or don't bother asking, those I'm slightly different problems. So, right now, I'm personally more concerned about people who are trying to participate remotely (or understand the IETF remotely) for the first several times. Given that, in general, we have no idea who those people are, surveying them would be a little difficult. If a side-effect of these discussions is that we change things enough that we do know who they are (at least those who are willing to tell us in exchange for a bit more support, sympathy, and the ability to take remote-participant-specific surveys if those are offered), I'd personally consider that a good thing. best, john
Re: dnssdext BOF (was: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87 Audio Streaming Info))
If I had known this was taking place I might have made the trip to Berlin. I am very interested in the problem this tries to solve. I think it is the wrong way to go about it but I am interested in the problem. The case for having some sort of local name discovery mechanism is clear in both the enterprise and the home network. The case for that discovery mechanism responding to DNS queries in the local namespace is equally clear. Thinking of this problem as how to clients configure their DNS entries is completely the wrong way to go about it. Setting up a new network service requires more than poking the DNS with a stick. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: On 26 Jul 2013, at 23:31, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: --On Friday, July 26, 2013 22:48 +0100 Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: That means the charter agreed from the bashing of the draft charter in the previous 40 minutes, not that a charter is already agreed. If there is something to be bashed for those 40 minutes, I'd expect a link to at least a skeleton first draft. I note that draft charter does have a link from the meeting materials page, just not from the agenda. But, modulo the comment below, that is a matter of taste to be working out between you, Ralph, and the IESG. The draft charter was placed where they usually are, on the BoF wiki. But I added a link to a specific draft charter file when I updated the agenda, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/agenda/dnssdext/. The other problem for mdnsext is that the second BoF has been given a different name, for various reasons, but that does make it a bit harder to locate the mail list and draft. 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. As far as I know, the only advertisement is the link from the Agendas and Meeting Materials section of the main meeting page and the similar links from the Meetings entry on the IETF home page. Now I'd personally like to see the New Attendees category on the main meeting page changed to New Attendees and Participantes and then including a link to a page that would give hints about where these things are and how to navigate around them. But that fairly clearly won't happen before Sunday and YMMD. Well, I would certainly agree that the meeting materials page/area needs to be well advertised, if it isn't already, but I don't know what additional information newcomers are pointed at, not being one. And also on the BoF wiki, which you should know about. Yep. I know about it and where to find it. But, as I explained in my note to Brian, I'm a lot more concerned about newcomers and remote participants without years or experience than I am about what I can find if I remember all of the reasonable places where I might look. While we/you can try to guess what the problems are, it may be better to surveymonkey those who registered as newcomers in a couple of weeks and ask them about their experience, whether they were aware of certain things, and what could be done better. Tim -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
