Re: [dnsext] Progress on moving the mailing list

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:06:18 -0400
> From: Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>
> 
> 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 [e-mail] alias, or is it
> necessary to create the list under the name [e-mail] and
> have an alias from [e-mail]?

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.