Re: Managed Object Associations and Algorithms List?

Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com> Thu, 11 February 1993 22:03 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17209; 11 Feb 93 17:03 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17205; 11 Feb 93 17:03 EST
Received: from thumper.bellcore.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27503; 11 Feb 93 17:04 EST
Received: by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7) id <AA11942> for ietf-archive@nri.reston.va.us; Thu, 11 Feb 93 17:04:21 EST
Received: from ftp.com (babyoil.ftp.com) by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7) id <AA11874> for /usr/lib/sendmail -oi -fowner-snmp2 X-snmp2; Thu, 11 Feb 93 17:04:18 EST
Received: by ftp.com id AA28983; Thu, 11 Feb 93 17:01:39 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 17:01:39 -0500
Message-Id: <9302112201.AA28983@ftp.com>
To: snmp@uu.psi.com
Subject: Re: Managed Object Associations and Algorithms List?
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com>
Reply-To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: oldera@twg.com, snmp@psi.com, snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com, snmp-sec-dev@tis.com

 > For myself, I think it important to have a discussion list *and* a
 > working group list.  The working group list should be focused on
 > advancing the documents through the process.  The discussion list can be
 > for FAQs, etc.  There is something of a difference between the two, eh?

sounds good in theory.

in practice, we find that almost all people are on both lists.  the
"wg" only traffic will be minimal.  messages will get cross posted,
just to catch the 3 people who are on only one of the lists. then we
get the meta-lawyerly-arguments: "does this belong on the w.g. list
or the discussion list?"

bad idea. bad idea. bad idea.

--
Frank Kastenholz
FTP Software
2 High Street
North Andover, Mass. USA 01845
(508)685-4000