Re: [RADIR] Should RADir be closed?

Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com> Tue, 15 December 2009 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <vaf@cisco.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 587133A6AA0 for <radir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:30:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.424
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 OKqCPwtRXf0o for <radir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:30:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00643A6A12 for <radir@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:30:21 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEANKAJ0urR7H+/2dsb2JhbADCHpcygiOCCAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,402,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="450064669"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Dec 2009 20:30:08 +0000
Received: from vaf-lnx1 (vaf-lnx1.cisco.com [128.107.165.254]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBFKU8lG023109; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:30:08 GMT
Received: by vaf-lnx1 (Postfix, from userid 113818) id ED6C0207AC; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:29:17 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:29:17 -0800
From: Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <20091215202917.GB24157@vaf-lnx1.cisco.com>
References: <20091129181219.2214C9A4746@odin.smetech.net> <200912151417.nBFEHdt7023605@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200912151417.nBFEHdt7023605@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, 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 20:30:22 -0000

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 09:17:39AM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > 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.)
...

Hi Thomas-

Good summary of the state of the problem statement document. I agree
with what you wrote.

	--Vince