RE: New Non-WG Mailing List: NetSlices - Network Slicing

John C Klensin <> Fri, 13 January 2017 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD538129C84 for <>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:17:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZA9Z3RuBT_Gu for <>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:17:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2918128AC9 for <>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:17:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1cS5TH-0009oo-3V; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:16:59 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:16:52 -0500
From: John C Klensin <>
Subject: RE: New Non-WG Mailing List: NetSlices - Network Slicing
Message-ID: <B850C31126A91181D757EE4B@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <02f401d26da8$655e7c30$301b7490$>
References: <> <02f401d26da8$655e7c30$301b7490$>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:17:11 -0000

--On Friday, January 13, 2017 14:21 +0000 Adrian Farrel
<> wrote:

> I hate to be a killjoy, but...
> Once upon a time the IESG used to supply a little text to
> include in this sort of announcement under the "Purpose"
> heading to allow us to work out whether we wanted to subscribe
> to the list. Since network slicing seems to be something that
> is done in a number of ways already, it would be nice to get a
> handle on what the purpose of this discussion forum is.


To say this a little more strongly, not only have we had
examples of abuses involving IETF-hosted lists but the IESG has
some responsibility to consider the time of the community a
valuable resource and to be as protective of it when creating
these lists as when proposing a WG.  There are lots of other
places where lists can be created for discussions that interest
the proposer; IETF non-WG lists should be created and announced
only if they add value to the IETF community or (probably "and")
the work of the IETF.   IMO, the IESG and individual ADs need to
consider themselves accountable for the creating of non-WG lists
and provide clear explanations of why the lists are being
created and what they are about.

I hope it doesn't take appeals of list announcements to
re-establish that principle.