Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 13 September 2018 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 C3E141252B7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 0T5qPZfeMODa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (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 DA044124D68 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 203-v6so4718432ljj.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nh+CUSEs5IRmh3f9apIo+6U6+UUaqa51gi7wkrOXQqo=; b=Wft1zeyzEn5yOHcvZmhkUCOYp5eLvYtbUE6bpDtm1GprGx4R/v82v6pOjE/NL+Mn6D 6mm7uQiK17v7W/3cZ1fdlI8ZprbPcuc4R+G3o8Kg9qHt5vR96m2c456Ia+cFkWwtAKna aUhFtTyRWF9MRYxU4jq6Emn2fwdKAjpgttdjyupBaegAilIirqvJ0IkKGQKzQQ8Q6ApL UyEx/Qj6qA/7Mi/7wWjBSKwXfb5xCj9r/cPmQMqa5uoKPT4qROU4gNthviZU6Rocoqjc NoOh4UQ0FPG1wS/dTGndzCJowTKJcTMYZ/HZMBkpx940IjSrQqqGZ83BzLN2wQBn5NkI Djqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nh+CUSEs5IRmh3f9apIo+6U6+UUaqa51gi7wkrOXQqo=; b=huy6Y2A6Rw6tpodw2Wji76Y+RXTM1uYLJSs32aXn9zyEOaOjxJiVuMXbpm4g1Uipb9 LeTcW/FYpCQ9+DTy2o3TwSlOzC7Ez3G7N52/6aSU8cG9sozwSISiUu1gpea34T/5GUvm EhDusabLq6RwvyyHdHHahds/m3pq7Xu6twWAt0MPE/4lZoxn+Ah/g1Q7h3sQwrb33nZk HhNkIC2FvE3hdNjUoNKlm3iaReJyODM7k7mwuFesGwudrZW4Gscy8mpvC01C9lfU+RzW B1zlGgzapyNfUiefC6HTuk04/AYmYIpgwS05Edtq4QgGgVP04YXW1CI6baISO58eZiin rM4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51Ba5fmLDV7QA+PIlU/IrhlPkwyjr/ZqgJr+jxh6JmwNKC2pPsw2 BkdraCD7yHfi09jlareGjvygF4x4X5ZhQq/lZUNiwg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZ78ytwqFEZXFGKOkgY0SRdZ7YJdnq70thCrZJ+pu3DTt8EQRbHILXTTbC1UDtc3bLaxb6KzvthRS45BrKDU/Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:2096:: with SMTP id g22-v6mr4724792lji.37.1536848007935; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:ab3:498d:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c94ff4f8-69da-ba41-7338-34f16f409429@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <153678592168.9395.10391346115284210918.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC4RtVCe_Kp7oBg6NewiOvBqRZ9=QKeYZydErxmmUrsjyW4Mnw@mail.gmail.com> <60607ea9-1aba-6512-4a52-b7c8e09c91ba@cs.tcd.ie> <CABcZeBPb45EOsOi9bZPyTMryoktxZt5_ziB8jKXUsRyGPnXQ-Q@mail.gmail.com> <c94ff4f8-69da-ba41-7338-34f16f409429@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:12:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPVDQ+mi+aceDiEh9M1F-xz9NLWGboy8pBJJf=YdMro2g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000096619a0575c14f6d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XJ86r-XgdaLudHQUFIlHeJwzAwc>
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 14:13:33 -0000

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>;
wrote:

2 - as to this list - I've no problem at all with having
> a very low bar for new lists, and there is perhaps a topic
> for the IETF here - it's just not possible to tell from
> the draft.


Right now, the IETF isn't involved, other than we're hosting the mailing
list. Unless you think Github is "involved" in the QUIC WG.


Basically, I'd just prefer that the IETF not
> be involved in discussion of the cybercardinality of
> cyberangels on cyberpinheads;-)
>

You'll have your chance to offer that perspective if/when this is proposed
as IETF work.

-Ekr






> Cheers,
> S.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>