Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 13 September 2018 07:36 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 8195F130E26 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h7AyuT-0KT4C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89EA512D7F8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) 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 <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO
Message-ID: <D22C4AF0E6B052FC91138B2E@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPb45EOsOi9bZPyTMryoktxZt5_ziB8jKXUsRyGPnXQ-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <153678592168.9395.10391346115284210918.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC4RtVCe_Kp7oBg6NewiOvBqRZ9=QKeYZydErxmmUrsjyW4Mnw@mail.gmail.c om> <60607ea9-1aba-6512-4a52-b7c8e09c91ba@cs.tcd.ie> <CABcZeBPb45EOsOi9bZPyTMryoktxZt5_ziB8jKXUsRyGPnXQ-Q@mail.gmail.com>
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-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/F6rtuLwAMKDFKLM6Hn8S0Ml-flw>
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: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:36:47 -0000
--On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 19:50 -0800 Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> 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 <ekr@rtfm.com> 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. john
- meta-list (was Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Barry Leiba
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Stephen Farrell
- Re: meta-list (was Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: C… Melinda Shore
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Eric Rescorla
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Barry Leiba
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Carsten Bormann
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO John C Klensin
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Eric Rescorla
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Michael StJohns
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Sean Turner