Re: [dnsext] Progress on moving the mailing list Fri, 01 October 2010 04:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7BDC3A6D87; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.377
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7GiEZQx67kru; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20C063A6D83; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1P1WwD-000PNH-3U for; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 04:09:37 +0000
Received: from [2001:478:6:0:230:48ff:fe11:220a] ( by with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1P1Ww9-000PIG-D5 for; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 04:09:34 +0000
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id o9148Mss008519; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 04:08:27 GMT
Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id o9148MKh008518; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 04:08:22 GMT
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 04:08:22 +0000
To: Andrew Sullivan <>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Progress on moving the mailing list
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <>

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 05:21:35PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> Some time ago, we said we were going to move the WG mailing list from
> to  This sort of fell off
> the radar as it looked like the WG was running out of things to do & I
> absurdly thought we might actually wind up or go back to sleep or
> something.  But with the rechartering in motion, it seemed to me we
> ought to make good on this.
> We've started the process, so the list has been created.
> At the moment, it has no members, and if you post to it your message
> will be moderated (and then we'll reject it).
> Over the coming period, we will subscribe all the existing
> namedroppers members to the list.  You will receive a
> message when this happens.  If you don't want to receive dnsext mail
> messages, then please unsubscribe then, or unsubscribe from
> namedroppers now.
> We will ask the operators of the namedroppers list to put an alias
> forwarding messaages to namedroppers instead to the dnsext list, and
> not to accept new subscriptions to namedroppers.  You won't get
> duplicate messages during the change over, and you won't lose mail to
> the list.  There will probably be a short period when new messages to
> the list are disallowed, and if you have filters that are using the
> exiting namedroppers headers, you will need to update them.
> I will post another announcement in the future with firm dates for the
> cutover.  I will give people ample notice of the cutover date so that
> they may update their filters.  In the meantime, the mail address will
> be and the RFC 2369 headers will follow the pattern of
> all the other lists hosted in the IETF mail infrastructure.
> Best regards,
> A

	I applaud this clean up. namedroppers, as a name, is an 
	ancient historical artifact, in the same vein as the end2end
	(e2e) list.  With increasing specialization, the original
	charter of namedroppers (to dicuss naming schemes) has been
	overcome by events in that pretty much all we talk about 
	is tweeks (the EXT) to the DNS protocol.  Its high time that
	we retired the old name and used a name that properly reflects
	the work that is being/planned for the DNS protocol ... perhaps  - general DNS discussion       - extentions to the DNS

	if there was a reason to retain "namedroppers" - it might properly
	be in the IRTF, where discussions on non-DNS naming architectures
	might properly take place.

	Or we could follow the e2e path, leaving the list intact, but moving
	all new discussion to the other list(s), like


--bill (my 0.02 Pf)