Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO

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/