Re: [Nethistory] Need a change

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 04 January 2019 04:31 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nethistory@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nethistory@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75DFB130F1B for <nethistory@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 20:31:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 1OlGkxdfa8dK for <nethistory@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 20:31:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (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 93700130F0B for <nethistory@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 20:31:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id u18so16853229plq.7 for <nethistory@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Jan 2019 20:31:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yLPhTThGn8mofLu6/0/xH/iOf0LwPqt0I5oQSWd+9qI=; b=V1Ovbz4UTwol0wtiMDBByORXvwz12A95RSz8NDLYH+X/aGtRKFelfD0znts7IuO+cF Jgct/bwWBNzpMlXoAJKvZtEy+gJtKVHK/aDBtL+BhKFTtNawlpc23uVq7ieip5VpRrfT f8jfscML4ZSCao75iZgoIX4YUFuQFOpxZWTfZZoFJQDwi2rxofZMgdGbB+7d/i0egZpn QkpNLMVklJ0OAUkVHt/be1Ljt7RoWYANA65iRUqCUcy3Lke0Qf/BlTzajxfnht36IYnY QiuIllpcscxrQLuyxk+20zDTZ9Mkqo23sjAtrl4a9P5Gn/yC+mwrHRMyk4ltM73crSmK C9jA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yLPhTThGn8mofLu6/0/xH/iOf0LwPqt0I5oQSWd+9qI=; b=qh/3qxR9wk7owxDiAnTGw7op7REsaXh6cONYf/UH3wW8cTtHhr2fDWZPZ7DffATLjt RxOqoVOTgAl0mewarVjQyegiOxqE+PaY8sZADAuGppF1/4ougO+FT6nGXipkJDlZZfsB 06XLX+ITV/ycowAQmzWJI3DbhIzMQKuUb1tPiDNDUdxRtjYs5AteZwoTPISsHwhegFPd 1R0jYTIFN/oPmCAbaUl1z7wiYUcPCFaAvBzQMs1gfo+IZ3TdVRq92kkzfgVHdLuILoIG s4IwpgGShk58r0tVVD5JgYBirLr6tuUoHp7H7x9W74pNv8CCVEHhkwvchi/Z8vrRqk0x Dk7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukf2NTaM5EVBpVZaQD78PRQPZlpCnX+7+7kbB/E7ZrNb9osAUccM IzI9JRcQbqnKLrEMKKDKMJiOFlsB
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4LueXyqV5kdf/93jyIUv8cpZzDyIK4ayy8WavgOp7mfo5w9zNHJUKR26rPSzcPHi4aH7bRrQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:346:: with SMTP id 64mr50910538pld.337.1546576307781; Thu, 03 Jan 2019 20:31:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.76.40]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j6sm91532853pfg.126.2019.01.03.20.31.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Jan 2019 20:31:46 -0800 (PST)
To: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, Sanjeev Gupta <ghane0@gmail.com>, Elizabeth Feinler <feinler@earthlink.net>, nethistory@ietf.org
References: <585D8550-E15D-4CE5-AB43-C1C49DA233E3@earthlink.net> <CAHZk5WdmJK9Jb0-a+CSk+Gx27bPcHmNn87ThLwB_T2mgPz41vg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901030818390.87828@ary.qy> <616ac103-736a-e64e-cb6a-6c3ee0dae9ae@gmail.com> <CAPv4CP8vc81jHPestayLpO1jACc0ah3Mm63UVKCHQez=d42YRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <892ddf9f-1ef6-0cf2-6e11-8b8db2c44265@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 17:31:40 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPv4CP8vc81jHPestayLpO1jACc0ah3Mm63UVKCHQez=d42YRg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nethistory/z2zi_bI3EvVQiNrC6Mcq0-6QZ34>
Subject: Re: [Nethistory] Need a change
X-BeenThere: nethistory@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Matching net historical materials with institutions that may preserve them <nethistory.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nethistory>, <mailto:nethistory-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nethistory/>
List-Post: <mailto:nethistory@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nethistory-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nethistory>, <mailto:nethistory-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 04:31:51 -0000

On 2019-01-04 17:15, Scott Brim wrote:
> Brian, what would you propose happen here? This list will not achieve
> critical mass (although I now remember the launch fondly). Take it to ISOC?

I don't really have the ergs to do any more than make the suggestion,
but yes, I think that would be a better next step than simply giving
up. I would imagine that some sort of cooperation with the Internet
Archive would be desirable. Also possibly with the Computer History
Museum, if any old-fashioned paper with ink is involved.

   Brian

> 
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
>> The only thing is, do we (for some value of "we") care about this?:
>>
>>>>> raise the awareness of IETF members about saving important historical
>> archives and artifacts.
>>
>> If we close the list, we're saying either that we (the IETF) don't care, or
>> that IETF people are already aware of the need to save stuff.
>>
>> I do care, because I've worked a bit on the history of computing and I'm
>> very
>> much aware of the historical value of personal records, alongside official
>> sources. But whether this is worthy of IETF cycles is a separate question.
>> It seems like something that should perhaps be an ISOC topic.
>>
>