Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO

John C Klensin <> Thu, 13 September 2018 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8195F130E26 for <>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h7AyuT-0KT4C for <>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89EA512D7F8 for <>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1g0MB6-000AqQ-H5; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 03:36:40 -0400
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 03:36:35 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Eric Rescorla <>, Melinda Shore <>
cc: Stephen Farrell <>, Barry Leiba <>, IETF discussion list <>
Subject: Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO
Message-ID: <D22C4AF0E6B052FC91138B2E@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> < om> <> <>
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: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:36:47 -0000

--On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 19:50 -0800 Melinda Shore
<>; wrote:

> I'll add that I do feel rather strongly about IETF work
> being hosted on IETF assets, but the point at which something
> becomes "IETF work" is admittedly rather fuzzy.

--On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 21:30 -0700 Eric Rescorla
<>; wrote:

> 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.

While I mostly agree with this, I think it is worth pointing out
that we've had the existence of work being hosted on IETF assets
used in non-IETF contexts to claim, not only that it is IETF
work, but that there is IETF endorsement for particular ideas
and positions. 

That experience suggests to me that the acceptable level of
explanation of what a list is about and why it is being created
should probably be somewhat higher than this announcement shows,
especially if we are going to be permissive about creating such
lists, and indeed that the threshold should be higher the less
the list is directly associated with active or generally
anticipated IETF work.