Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: unbearable

Nico Williams <> Tue, 09 December 2014 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860D71A8A0E; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:36:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.034
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.034 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2pILXtoNgr-Q; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:36:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D26D41A8A0B; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:36:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2AFD1006D; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:36:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to;; bh=r00SOJ0qOrvVm2 E+i7qBW+izrEw=; b=ej7xvtugGWu8VB6UIMpDwX15naFZrNQUyItSTQxLPykngu EgalprM1KkRD1dEOE3UpRrNzTp4FMwU7Z1RsUJJFlU27tleCylfx43xo3vCjysip cjkbPAz/+wAzrSBOqjYGPl0k5cDk0mDSdQMo2QL12VTDwsuqMAaEjuq17h/Wg=
Received: from localhost ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 59ADF10062; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:36:43 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:36:42 -0600
From: Nico Williams <>
To: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: unbearable
Message-ID: <20141209173638.GD12979@localhost>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 17:36:44 -0000

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 02:49:41PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> As a member of or sympathizer with various societies for bear
> encouragement and preservation (black, brown, polar, Cub Scouts,
> Teddy, Pooh, ... in no particular order), I find this name
> really objectionable.  From the description, "unbearerable"
> might have been better, "betterbearer" certainly would have been.

If the outcome is intended to be proof-of-possession extensions that
render bearer token schemes no-longer-bearer... then "unbearable" seems
better than "betterbearer", though I agree with you that "unbearable"
comes across as potentially insulting.  Maybe we should all be thick-
skinned[*] enough to get the joke and move on, but:

> I wonder if anyone has ever appealed a mailing list name.

The risk here is that key participants might simply... ignore it until
it's too late.  I think the AD can probably do some promotion to try to
avoid such an outcome.


[*] If there is such a medical problem as having thin skin, note that
    this is just a manner of speaking; no offense meant.