IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed ietf.org email address policy

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 12 June 2021 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C53683A15BE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 07:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gl7Osb26Rmwa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 07:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 053773A15BC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 07:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com with SMTP id g142so8668371ybf.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 07:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vcOO0FD+m6ep/sL3NbnJSlXXHFRtLpK09TcD7MkyWnE=; b=qzOR+3x6VYnMrFgzFTmFHkgoPvYIDOiLMYyElNJrgNxYR6GRwklDxw+AaZt/Kk9SHV ywunsH1GH6dK2hhO/OJx54TXHigkn4pLeAkg8utWH9b/8TqUeZyAhQzX5nIir3Pc/DoD Ry7nmf6tilnhR40q9bKolumDdgtDMg65NvroykT0wSFpoWp0lGTgCGPyFkmlp6QIzmqc vMQ6uwIQcEK1e7ebvXl52TmVCgg2B70w8m0X+zpxOkfIGNphNx3njlCXjEOow4I29EzO XXidncVYRpDrz9Ay+4UGULTHRqIFAcHjNE3mFKeb+8tBQbukb3fSxRFbxNVVSm8jc8tE xDtg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vcOO0FD+m6ep/sL3NbnJSlXXHFRtLpK09TcD7MkyWnE=; b=mYJmQXvXd9admhZ21TMg/5QtD1oO7h25YKf+9kL8aKOrLGjZWnIUNHtH3ta+CdJFrw YNDAM+oQXFa8PDUuIIS8QCaqDSQIalasyxsz9RkupF7v+EhI0SkRWPfNBCo4CisIBpG2 VxFhu9TMemyQ55hikTS/mDGMXisXiBqhzNbUBfJ6Pz52gnf7ksCjfNljGT2NiiVOAb4y GwTxx/FoGaBZW63Xce5eIZv+LjOS/Fc5BgoDZg7VoSWnvidfsNK5EN5c77Hyi/5Ew1Pe Xig40T4QpDIeI1U/+fuPDsFFCdd1UGltCloPrNI6BEHEiPd0GS05hTCHnai4j3eLHOqO 2HeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533/+Y0ybsPrOaACzEATch6gzqtiK92/rif17zhRg39ZG5DC+mcS Up7ToSnndsJGfVTnmV6iu3mH9asklg/bgP4RGzYcGjshoH0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxWfEmbvQQ5RuDFl4UntfOcidyCFdRMxwEQQBsh+5+uIksAgsGfKTC9erR1qXDo89sR/If2nZ5lecLlPN54s6E=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:74c6:: with SMTP id p189mr13180965ybc.84.1623509313901; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 07:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2BF6EC60-8B32-4171-B236-D9D038B3135B@yahoo.co.uk> <20210611174521.CD568F22E4A@ary.qy> <20210611182604.GA36947@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <ff6d912d-b0c6-4550-8d16-a79348e45699@dogfood.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ff6d912d-b0c6-4550-8d16-a79348e45699@dogfood.fastmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 09:48:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-enK4XmMuapke9LX-3TVuyg9j12zS9RyWXqvOT6Vbk5Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed ietf.org email address policy
To: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
Cc: IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f1d90d05c492b74f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/77HrBv6TKMEMRPZRNC26CMk8Sgs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 14:48:41 -0000

Hi, Bron,

On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 8:52 AM Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
wrote:

>
> Anyways, the IETF already has mail forwarding infrastructure, per the
> alias expanders for all the drafts.  The difference is between "a static
> contact address" (which I see some value in having for every RFC that can
> be updated or directed to the most relevant working group if the RFC is
> abandoned by its original authors), and an address which people might start
> signing up as the target for significant volumes of non-person-to-person
> traffic.
>

Right. So I was thinking of a static contact address in my previous note.

I think we're back to the question of what we hope to accomplish, which
might be to have some contact for each RFC (or each standards-track RFC, or
something. Mumbles) that could direct traffic on where to go next.

I think the IESG (as a whole or as individual ADs, if you're good at
guessing which one) is the last resort now, for people who want to follow
up about an RFC and who can figure that out.

This would be somewhat similar to having the IESG as contact for (some)
IANA registries, rather than a person or a WG that might conclude.

Does that make sense? Not as "the goal", but as one possible goal that
might be worth considering.

Best,

Spencer


> Bron.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email