Re: [apps-discuss] Proposal for a Finance Area Mailing List

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 09 March 2012 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D356721F8575 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:58:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.606
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jfq-Dw-xAubs for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:58:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE9421F8573 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:58:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-58-62.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.58.62]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q29Fwigi013418 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:58:49 -0800
Message-ID: <4F5A28A4.8090208@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:58:28 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <20120309141747.82205.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20120309141747.82205.qmail@joyce.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:58:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposal for a Finance Area Mailing List
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 15:58:51 -0000

On 3/9/2012 6:17 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> �Anyone likely to implement it? �The IETF has a well known
>>> preference for running code.
>>
>> (One might wonder if such conflicts with the 'come with a problem
>> rather than a solution' philosophy of the BOFs / mailing list
>> proposals @ http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5434#page-2 ?  Then again,
>> one might try to focus on avoiding bureaucratic discussion
>> entirely...)
>
> I'll take that as "no".


expecting code to exist even before pre-standards work has been discussed seems 
a tad excessive.

on the other hand, having a clear problem statement and clear statement of 
desired output -- or in the alternative, questions intended to produce those 
clear statements -- is more typical for pre-standards discussion lists.

absent those, there is no substantive anchor for the discussions.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net