Re: [dnsext] Progress on moving the mailing list

Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> Sat, 02 October 2010 04:58 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6953A6D44; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 21:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cvx7ilTpTMBF; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 21:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 478AA3A6C74; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 21:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1P1u5S-000AM3-U1 for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Sat, 02 Oct 2010 04:52:42 +0000
Received: from [2001:4f8:3:bb:230:48ff:fe5a:2f38] (helo=nsa.vix.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <vixie@vix.com>) id 1P1u5P-000ALi-TK for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 02 Oct 2010 04:52:39 +0000
Received: from nsa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nsa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3854BA1037 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Oct 2010 04:52:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vixie@nsa.vix.com)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
To: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Progress on moving the mailing list
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:06:18 -0400." <20101001170617.GY8669@shinkuro.com>
References: <20100930212134.GK8669@shinkuro.com> <AANLkTinn+UYJ+tcJyXptVC9aLzk-DS9aX4964KOEWGTA@mail.gmail.com> <289ACF85-8360-4D90-9CD1-FFA7986E026F@shinkuro.com> <12036.1285904617@nsa.vix.com> <20101001170617.GY8669@shinkuro.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.1; nil; GNU Emacs 23.1.1
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 04:52:39 +0000
Message-ID: <16202.1285995159@nsa.vix.com>
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:06:18 -0400
> From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>;
> 
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 03:43:37AM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > i feel strongly.  it's always been namedroppers.  before there was an
> > ietf in its current, there was a namedroppers mailing list.  if ietf
> > doesn't want to run the namedroppers mailing list (by that name) others
> > should so offer.
> 
> Would it be acceptable to have a namedroppers@ietf.org alias, or is it
> necessary to create the list under the name namedroppers@ietf.org and
> have an alias from dnsext@ietf.org?

it's my preference that it be called by its eternal name ("namedroppers@"),
and that no new name (such as "dnsext@") be created, and so, no aliases.

> If the latter, does anyone want to address Bill Manning's point that,
> given that namedroppers has not always been the address for _this working
> group's_ mailing list, reusing that list name for this WG might be
> confusing?

dnsind and dnsext have always used "namedroppers@".  i think bill's point
was that "namedroppers@" predates these working groups and indeed was once
used ("@sri-nic.arpa";) to discuss non-DNS naming systems.  i'm uncompelled
by this argument.  when the internet community has discussed naming at the
protocol level, they've always called the forum "namedroppers@", and i sort
of like it like that.  but, i fibbed before.  i feel moderately about it,
not strongly.