IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RADIR] Should RADir be closed?

"Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com> Tue, 15 December 2009 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com>
X-Original-To: radir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781C83A6884 for <radir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:07:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, DIET_1=0.083, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8kEH-shPha-Q for <radir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frontiercorp.com (mail05.frontiercorp.com [66.133.172.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52BA93A68DF for <radir@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:07:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([10.160.69.53]) by mail05.frontiercorp.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503521.69634319; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:06:43 -0500
Received: from ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt ([10.160.69.50]) by nyrofcs03exht02 ([10.160.69.53]) with mapi; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:06:35 -0500
From: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:05:40 -0500
Thread-Topic: [RADIR] Should RADir be closed?
Thread-Index: Acp9kUHywAGFHGOxR/eIiiPCB6EfAwADydbA
Message-ID: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F104851ECD874@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <20091129181219.2214C9A4746@odin.smetech.net> <200912151417.nBFEHdt7023605@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <200912151417.nBFEHdt7023605@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-esp: ESP<10>= SHA:<0> SHA_FLAGS:<0> UHA:<10> ISC:<0> BAYES:<0> SenderID:<0> DKIM:<0> TS:<0> SIG:<> DSC:<0> TRU_scam_spam: <0> TRU_urllinks: <0> TRU_spam2: <0> TRU_ru_spamsubj: <0> TRU_embedded_image_spam: <0> TRU_profanity_spam: <0> TRU_legal_spam: <0> TRU_money_spam: <0> TRU_stock_spam: <0> TRU_watch_spam: <0> TRU_spam1: <0> TRU_marketing_spam: <0> TRU_phish_spam: <0> URL Real-Time Signatures: <0> TRU_lotto_spam: <0> TRU_medical_spam: <0> TRU_html_image_spam: <0> TRU_playsites: <0> TRU_freehosting: <0> TRU_adult_spam: <0> TRU_misc_spam: <0>
Cc: "radir@ietf.org" <radir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [RADIR] Should RADir be closed?
X-BeenThere: radir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Directorate <radir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir>, <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radir>
List-Post: <mailto:radir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir>, <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:07:02 -0000

I agree with what you said here.

Marla 

-----Original Message-----
From: radir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:radir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:18 AM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: radir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RADIR] Should RADir be closed?

> I have not seen much activity here in quite some time.  Has the 
> directorate outlived its usefulness?

I think there is agreement we don't have a real purpose at this point and energy seems to have moved elswhere.

But, I think the problem statement document we put together is pretty good and I think it should get published as an info RFC. The last version was in pretty good shape (IMO), but hadn't really gotten much feedback either way, so others may think otherwise. (The main change in the last revision was to take out more of the "business judgement"
as being out-of-scope.)

Not sure how best to publish it. We can go the independent submission route, but I think it would better for all if this were IETF approved, implying it had gotten IETF review and folk were generally supportive (and more importantly, there was no serious objecting/disagreement with the content). I have doubts about going further and trying and get IETF "consensus" and make it a BCP or something stronger, as the community is likely fundamentally divided on the question of "how serious" the problem is. I suspect that no one really has the desire or energy to have that debate yet again.

I do think the document should say that it was put together by the directorate, listing the members and so forth, but without trying to claim that because it was done by a directorate, it has some sort of special cachet or extra weight.  But at the same time, I don't think we should lose the history of how the document was developed.

Thoughts?

Thomas
_______________________________________________
RADIR mailing list
RADIR@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email