Re: [arch-d] iesg: Re: Updates on IAB mailing lists

My read has been that architecture-discuss was for Internet Architecture 
topics of relevance to the IAB or IETF.

That does not, in my book, include random musing about research projects 
that may or may not lead to something in some ill-defined time in the 
future.

And even if you disagree with the specific example, it does mean that 
there are clearly things which are off-topic for architecture-discuss. 
Which means that someone needs to be authorized to deal with such things 
when they become problematic.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/20/2020 4:13 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> Thanks - I hadn't followed Toeless' thread where he encountered the 
> problem that triggered his email.
> 
> Just to make sure I understand - the architecture-discuss list is 
> intended only for topics that the IAB deems of interest specifically to 
> the IAB and NOT a general community list to discuss things related to 
> the Internet architecture.  Is that correct?   If so, then it does seem 
> we need a list where folks can have discussion of technical topics that 
> aren't necessarily related to work IAB is doing.   I know we've 
> discussed in the past that the IETF discussion list is most suitable for 
> those discussions but I think most would agree that the list has a whole 
> lot more discussion of how we do non-technical things than technical (I 
> would guess 90/10 for the most part).   I think many don't pay near the 
> attention to the list that they might if it were technical discussions - 
> for example, I subscribe to that list using my general email that I use 
> for not real work.
> 
> So, one question I would have then, is whether it's thus only 
> appropriate for someone in the community to post to architecture-discuss 
> if they are asking specific questions on current IAB activities and 
> documents?
> 
> Regards,
> Mary.
> 
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 2:52 PM Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com 
> <mailto:melinda.shore@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 4/20/20 11:49 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>      > Personally, I think it's a handy list to have
>      > for purely technical discussions as opposed to all the non-technical
>      > discussions on the main IETF discussion list.
> 
>     Right, but I think it's clear that it's not every technical
>     discussion, which circles back around to Toerless's argument.
> 
>     Melinda
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> 