> On Mar 1, 2025, at 12:57 PM, Muhammad Usama Sardar > <muhammad_usama.sar...@tu-dresden.de> wrote: > > On 01.03.25 06:27, Sean Turner wrote: > >> • Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings, activities, or >> technical concerns (from RFC 3683) > > Could the chairs please clarify about the announcement of side meetings on > the mailing list in the FAQ [1]? > > More specifically, like John, I too was planning to announce my public side > meetings on attested TLS with the intention to inform potentially interested > participants and for organizational matters (e.g., to request a bigger room > if more participants are interested, or to choose an alternate time most > suitable to interested participants, or to see if someone else in interested > in presenting etc.). Since there will likely be not much flexibility close to > the meeting, this is the right time to have this kind of announcement. > > Attested TLS was presented at least a couple of times (most recently at IETF > 121) in the TLS WG meetings, and several times in RATS WG meetings. So I > consider it still related to IETF activities. But I want to double-check how > the chairs view it: is it possible to announce it with the explicit mention > that it is a "public side meeting"? or do the chairs see it as off-topic? If > the latter, what is the exact boundary line between related and off-topic? > I can’t really give you an exact boundary, but we are definitely trying to avoid anything incendiary. But, if you contact us first, as we request in the Mail List Procedures, we will try to figure out whether we think it will be or not.
We talked and are fine with you announcing your side meeting. > Also, one clarification question: > > On 28.02.25 18:27, John Mattsson wrote: >> The new updated procedures for side-meetings as well as some of the >> formulations in my mail seems to caused some confusion. >> > I have organized some side meetings in the past. In my personal > understanding, only the scheduling mechanism for public side meetings has > changed, but principles for public side meetings have not changed. Isn't this > the case? I mean the following phrase existed in IETF 121 as well: > > "side meetings are not part of the official IETF meeting agenda, are not > approved or even reviewed by the IESG, and have no formal standing. Side > meetings should not be used to imply endorsement by the IETF" [2] > > [1] https://github.com/tlswg/tlswg-wiki/blob/main/FAQ.md > > [2] https://wiki.ietf.org/en/meeting/121/sidemeetings > The IESG has purview over the side meetings. I asked Deb and I believe your characterization of the “change” is correct for the difference from IETF 121 to IETF 122. She also noted that maybe the change before that was that now you also have to register for the IETF meeting to have side meeting. spt
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
