Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO

Eh I saw it fly by, then did a datatracker search on caco and found the draft. I guess more info would have saved me some time, but I’m kind of used to following references and searching the datatracker at this point. 

spt

> On Sep 13, 2018, at 01:58, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
> I agree that lists are cheap and that one of our main jobs is to
> facilitate discussion, so I have no issue with the creation of the
> list.  I just hoped for a bit more explanation -- even "For details
> see <this draft>" would have helped (I didn't know there was a draft
> at all).
> 
> Anyway, just for future reference; thanks for listening.
> 
> Barry
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>> Full disclosure: I approved this list, so feel free to be unhappy at me.
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hiya,
>>> 
>>> On 13/09/18 03:37, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>> This really should have come with a fuller description: I shouldn't
>>>> have to contact the list admins just to find out whether a new mailing
>>>> list ought to be on my radar or not.
>>> 
>>> Yeah. And the archive's empty. And it uses the almost
>>> always meaningless prefix "cyber" over and over in
>>> many predictable (but meaningless) ways.
>> 
>> 
>> Well, the archive is empty because it was created today, so I don't think
>> that's much of a critique.
>> 
>> I'll take responsibility for not insisting on there being a very detailed
>> description. I generally find the descriptions pretty uninformative (see,
>> for instance https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm) so my bar isn't
>> very high here, but I see how others might feel differently.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> So that's all bad signs IMO then (except for the
>>> existence of the draft.)
>>> 
>>> I'm also a bit sad that we've gotten to the point
>>> where we're setting up lists driven to any extent
>>> by what's really an ill-defined marketing buzzword.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> OTOH, the goal according to [1] is an information
>>> model, so it could be mostly to totally harmless I
>>> guess;-)
>>> 
>>> Only other thing to note is that this happens so
>>> often (new list for who knows what) that maybe the
>>> tooling's a bit wrong and encourages folks to ok
>>> or ask for lists without considering that others
>>> don't have the same (or any) context.
>> 
>> 
>> I think you and I are just going to have to disagree here. Lists are cheap
>> -- they're not WGs -- and I bias in favor of facilitating discussion. I
>> think this is appropriate especially in view of the fact that one of the
>> first questions we ask for a proposed BOF is whether there has been a lot of
>> list traffic. Again, you're free to feel differently.
>> 
>> -Ekr
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> S.
>>> 
>>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jordan-cacao-introduction-00
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Barry
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:58 PM, IETF Secretariat
>>>> <ietf-secretariat@ietf.org> wrote:
>>>>> A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
>>>>> 
>>>>> List address: cacao@ietf.org
>>>>> Archive: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cacao/
>>>>> To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cacao
>>>>> 
>>>>> Purpose:
>>>>> This email list will be used to discuss Collaborative Automated Course
>>>>> of
>>>>> Action Operations (CACAO) for Cyber Security
>>>>> 
>>>>> For additional information, please contact the list administrators.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Barry
> --
> Barry Leiba  (barryleiba@computer.org)
> http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
> 