Subject: Re: IETF meeting scaling: early schedules?

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:08:45 -0700 (PDT)

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:36:49 -0400
> 
> > > Occasional interim meetings can indeed be quite useful and they are 
> > > fine as long as most of the work gets done on the mailing list.  
> > > But I've seen far too many groups that try to do most of their 
> > > work in interim meetings, ...
> > 
> > Up to this point I was not going to say anything.
> > 
> > The CALSCH WG has been accused of that. However its fairly
> > rare for someone to post any solution and for a problem and
> > not show up for the interim meetings.
> > 
> > There is still much work to do in CALSCH and no interim meeting
> > would slow it down. 
> 
> The problem is that interim meetings inevitably exclude a valuable
> set of participants - including those who are not in North 
> those who are involved with large numbers of working groups and
> have valuable experience in protocol design, and those who think
> of the impact of this work in terms far longer than product release 
> cycles.

I can see that this can be a problem. In the 1st stages of a draft
(and we are at draft-00), you just have to write the proposal
and send it to the WG. That seems to be the way to get others
to notice and participate.

I have no problem having a meeting in *any* country. The last
few of our interim meetings we had at least one local participant
that did not participate in the WG-list, but wanted to attend
a face to face meeting and they could not justify travel
to a full IETF meeting.

> Occasionally interim meetings are a good idea, but it is my experience
> that when they become "business as usual" the quality of the group's 
> work tends to suffer for lack of broader input.

I think after the first one or two revisions of the draft are out I
would agree.  My observation of the WG's is that some small set of
people get together and write something.  Then send it to the WG.  I
don't see discussion of those drafts on any WG lists prior to -00
being published.  This leads me to the conclusion that there are
unannounced meeting (phone, video, or face to face) prior to the
release of of -00 drafts between the editors.

I think that formal announcements to the WG list for interim meetings
is an improvement.

> > There are very little comments (compared to the amount of work done)
> > sent to the WG list after a draft is submitted.
> 
> This might be a sign that all is well.  It can also be a danger sign.
> It can mean that the folks who weren't at the interim meeting feel
> excluded to the point that they aren't willing to participate.

It can mean that. However in this world you have to speak up.
I faced the same fears when I went from lurking on the WG to
participation. You have to speak up - thing are going to happen.

> One important question is:  do the people at the interim meeting feel 
> that they're dictating the outcome of the group's work, or that they're 
> trying to put together a proposal that will help build consensus?

1) Most definitely trying to build consensus.
2) Produce a draft.

> Another is: do the people who weren't able to attend the interim meeting
> feel like their ideas and concerns are being given adequate consideration?

Do they attend the full IETF meetings?  If not then they have to voice
their opinion on the WG list anyway. I just see that without interim
meetings its going to take MUCH longer to get a draft where they
can oppose, propose, or support the ideas.

> Questions like these are difficult to answer.  Unfortunately, by the
> time it is obvious that a working group has gone off into the weeds
> because control of the output is in the hands of too few people, there's
> very little that anyone can do to fix things.
> 
> > Vendors do talk to each other. That's a fact of life. So (in my
> > opinion) its best to do that inside of the IETF. And I see
> > interim meetings as a way to move a standard along faster.
> 
> Yes, but having lots of interim meetings increases the probability 
> that the result won't be worthy of standardization.  If a specification 
> is debated mostly by email, people have to read and attempt to understand 
> the spec *without benefit of someone to explain it in person*.  This
> encourages the author/editor to write very clear prose so that list
> members can understand it.  Over the life of a protocol standard, most
> of the people who are implementing the specification will not have been
> working group participants and will not have had the benefit of 
> participation in face to face meetings with the protocol designers.
> The specification must stand on its own.    A protocol specification 
> written by one or two individuals, with the implicit requirement that it 
> be understandable by working group members with little more contact than
> a mailing list, is a lot more likely to be clear and concise than one 
> which was developed by a committee at a large number of face to face
> meetings.

I agree with you. One of the most frustrating parts of the WG list
is trying to get people to send their opinions. Often, an idea
in a draft they do not like is the way to extract ideas from them.

> ..., but I cannot think of a single 
> group in the applications are which has held frequent interim meetings, 
> whose output has not been called into question by those who felt 
> excluded, and/or of dubious quality.  Such situations create a 
> severe burden for the ADs, because by the time the complaint is made
> or by the time a poorly written specification is deemed 'finished' 
> by the group, it's very difficult to do anything to improve the situation.

I would suggest that they complain to the WG list so that we can see
the problem.  I suggest that (at least in my experience), the best way
to solve the issues is to open up the problem.  When someone goes to
an AD the first thing I would think you might be asking is "did you
take this to the WG?".  If the answer is NO, then send them to the WG.
If its YES, then I would think that asking the chair "What was the
consensus?",  should solve the problem.

I most definitely have had my input to drafts alter the draft
when I did not attend *any* meeting for that WG.

Every WG that I read has the same problem when a draft comes out.
Even if they have never had an interim meeting.

> But I do want to encourage WG chairs to make sure that participation
> in their groups is completely open to all would-be participants
> (not just to "vendors"), that meetings aren't held so often that they 
> shut out those who cannot attend, and that the major discussions are 
> held on the list rather than at face to face meetings.   Particularly
> in the applications area, the ADs cannot supervise everything closely, 
> so the IETF necessarily places a great deal of trust in its WG chairs.
> The chair has the primary responsibility for keeping things open.

I (working for a vendor) agree. I can say we do not want a
product that users and administrators do not like.
It does not sell :-)

-Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]		http://playground.sun.com/~dougr
Pager:				[email-masked]
801 W. El Camino #131		Work:   (650)786-7599
Mountain View, CA 94040		Ham Radio: N6AAW, Aviation: PP-ASEL

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:28:24 -0700

>a face to face meeting and they could not justify travel

Now that's interesting.  Why is travel to an interim meeting less 
costly than to "a full IETF meeting"?  (I realize you're speaking on 
someone else's behalf, Doug.)

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The man that can most truly be accounted brave is he who best
   knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and what is terrible,
   and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come.
   -- Pericles, "Funeral Oration", 479 B.C.
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:28:24 -0700

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:10:35 -0400

> release of of -00 drafts between the editors.

I certainly hope not.  In general I'd much rather see a spec written 
by one or two clueful individuals who have participated in a mailing 
list discussion, than one which was developed in lots of face to 
face meetings.  Committees are lousy at writing protocol specs, and
a spec is a lot more likely to get evaluated on its merits if it is 
written by one or two individuals.

> I think that formal announcements to the WG list for interim meetings

Announcements to the WG list aren't sufficient.  The announcements 
need to go to the whole IETF.

> participation. You have to speak up - thing are going to happen.

Right.  But if a bunch of people have already gone off and written
a very poor draft, and those people seem to form a critical mass
(if not consensus) of the working group, it's difficult to speak up
unless you can make specific requests for small changes.  What are 
you going to say, "this document sucks?"  What's the point?

I have a lot fewer problems with interim meetings that are used to
wordsmith already-mature documents, than I do with meetings that are
used to write documents during their the formative stages.

> 1) Most definitely trying to build consensus.

In general, the latter shouldn't be happening in an interim meeting.
It's not against any rule (so long as the meeting is authorized),
it's just a bad strategy.

> can oppose, propose, or support the ideas.

Not necessarily.  Just because the work is done over email doesn't mean
that it takes longer.  if there are frequent face to face meetings (or
teleconferences) people will wait for those meetings to try to get 
closure.  without those meetings you try to get closure on email.

> consensus?",  should solve the problem.

It certainly doesn't solve the problem when the group has been holding 
unauthorized meetings.  The consensus of a group that has violated the 
process rules is meaningless, and short of shutting down the group and
starting over there's no "fair" way to get things back on track.
Of course, shutting down the group is likely to be quite destructive,
so you usually don't want to do that either.  But sometimes you have
to do something, and I've come close to shutting down more than one group.

A lot of WG chairs don't seem to realize that by holding unauthorized
meetings, that they're not only placing the AD in a difficult position,
they're placing the entire group's work in jeopardy.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:10:35 -0400

Keith

---

From: Jim Whitehead <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:05:40 -0700

> you going to say, "this document sucks?"  What's the point?

So, your objection is that there can be "bad consensus", and that bad
consensus is the peculiar affliction of working groups with a strong
pre-chartering constituency. But, in fact, there are precedents in the IETF
of bad consensus in both open and less transparent working groups.

It's possible for a document editor to write a poor document after reading
only mailing list commentary.  It's also possible for a document editor to
write a good document after attending a face to face meeting.  Since appeals
to authority are the norm in this thread, I'll say that "in my experience"
I've seen examples of both.

Small design groups do not necessarily produce bad drafts, just as open
processes do not necessarily produce good drafts.

> that it takes longer.

Topics that involve discussion of graph-like structures can be significantly
enhanced by having face-to-face discussions where people can quickly draw
the graphs and then point at them.  ASCII art is tedious and time-consuming
to produce, and of low grahpic quality for all the effort.

> if there are frequent face to face meetings (or

Good point.  On the other hand, who has not seen an acrimonious WG meeting
that has punted a topic back to the mailing list?

- Jim

---

From: Jim Whitehead <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:05:40 -0700

- Jim

---

From: Jim Whitehead <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:05:43 -0700

> written by one or two individuals.

This message makes it sound like it's bad to come to the IETF with an
existing protocol specification that was developed outside IETF rules.  But
in fact, there is significant precedent in the IETF for taking protocol
specifications that were developed by a relatively small group, in cases
even by just a few individuals, and then working on them in an IETF WG, and
standardizing them.  This was the standardization path of HTTP, Gopher,
Archie/Prospero, NNTP, NFS, Kerberos, TLS, and many others.  In this, more
traditional, role the IETF is a forum for *interoperability*
standardization. It takes these protocol specifications "in the rough" and
gives them a final sanding and polishing.

RFC 2418, "IETF Working Group Procedures and Guidelines", states:

      The Area Director MAY require that a BOF not be held until an
      Internet-Draft describing the proposed technology has been
      published so it can be used as a basis for discussion in the BOF.

Typically this draft is developed by a small group of people, who may be
following IETF rules, and who may not.  If, as is more and more often the
case in the IETF today, two BOFS are held before the working group is
chartered, a pre-WG ad-hoc group can develop several drafts in the 8-10
months before a WG is chartered.  So, IETF rules seem to be biased in favor
of a small group of individuals developing an Internet-Draft that will be a
key driver of the vocabulary, design, and abstractions used in the WG.

{much intervening text snipped}

> it's just a bad strategy.

Does this extend to the point of discouraging co-authorship and editorial
team meetings? There's a fine line between a collaborative and a cartel, and
it's not clear that any of us are in a position to draw it.

- Jim

---

From: Jim Whitehead <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:05:43 -0700

- Jim

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:47:01 -0700

>to produce, and of low grahpic quality for all the effort.

ASCII art is not the only option here. You can use a drawing program, 
create a GIF or JPEG, put it on a web site, and reference that picture in a 
message to the WG list. I do *not* suggest sending GIFs and JPEGs in 
messages to mailing lists because a significant number of people still have 
text-only readers, and many of those with MIME capabilities have a hard 
time wading through the attachments. But saying "here's what I'm thinking; 
see <URL>" is perfectly reasonable.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:47:01 -0700

--Paul Hoffman, Director

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:20:49 +0100 (BST)

On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

> time wading through the attachments.

...and overloading mailing lists and people's mailboxes with binary
junk attachments that may not interest them is bad form in any case.

> But saying "here's what I'm thinking; 

Indeed. It's also very friendly to archiving the mailing list on the
web with e.g. MHonarc - read, click and go. Useful for people who
catch up on mailing list happenings once a week or so.

L.

and all IETF mailing lists have threaded web archives, right?
If not, why not?

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:20:49 +0100 (BST)

L.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:30:14 +0100 (BST)

On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Jim Whitehead wrote:

> Archie/Prospero, NNTP, NFS, Kerberos, TLS, and many others. 

You mean _is_ the standardisation path - unless a lot of STD documents
have been issued all of a sudden recently.

the tradition is to work on them in an IETF WG to improve and clarify
interoperability and functionality; standardisation is an entirely
other matter, and an arguably lesser concern.

L.

standardisation paths: de facto, de jure, or de adend.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:30:14 +0100 (BST)

L.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:57:04 -0400

> and all IETF mailing lists have threaded web archives, right?

nope.  though hopefully they all have archives that allow the message
to be downloaded in their original (rfc822/mime) format
(as opposed to some html-ized format)

> If not, why not?

in my experience, threaded archives alone aren't terribly useful for 
browsing an old list.  an archive that combines threading and searching
(so you can search for a string and then browse the thread) is a lot
more helpful.

as for "why not" I'd venture that the state of the art of most threaded
archiving software isn't really up to the job.  given a choice between
"original format" archives and "threaded" archives - the former is 
a lot more useful because it's more flexible.  with original format
archives you can always download the original messages and feed them 
to your favorite.  also from a "record keeping" point of view you
clearly want the messages in original format.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:57:04 -0400

Keith

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:15:05 -0700

I concur with Keith's assessment that threading AND searching are needed.

This sub-thread raises a question I've contemplated for awhile, namely that 
it is time for the IETF formally REQUIRE that working group mailing lists 
be archived, with web access to individual messages.

Per Keith's observation, I think that threading (HE might not like it but 
*I* find it helpful) and searching be required also.

thoughts?

d/

>clearly want the messages in original format.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:15:05 -0700

thoughts?

d/

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:35:54 +0100 (BST)

> I concur with Keith's assessment that threading AND searching are needed.

I strongly agree.

> be archived, with web access to individual messages.
                   ^ searchable.
 
I strongly agree, although the original RFC822 messages-dumped-to-file
should always also be accessible. I find the thought of being able to
refer to related discussion in another workgroup, with a
cross-referencing URL that explains and expands on what I'm talking
about, very compelling.

We've had searchable RFC indices for some time now (albeit not on the 
IETF website, which has a raw directory). They're _useful_.

If you're going to encourage a million monkeys to get to work writing
protocol specs, you want them to soak up as much background as easily
as possible. Searchable threaded web archives of WG mailing lists
would help enormously in that.

L.

Utah mail! U U U Utah mail!

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:35:54 +0100 (BST)

I strongly agree.

                   ^ searchable.

L.

---

From: Peter Dawson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:00:32 +0400

Well worth looking into !
All IETF WG mailing lists MUST be archived and SHALL be
threaded, with web access to all msg's.

IMHO, RFC2418 SHOULD explicitly  specify this.

Scott, any inputs ?

/pete

Dave Crocker wrote:

> =-=-=-
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1
> 408 246 8253

---

From: Peter Dawson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:00:32 +0400

Scott, any inputs ?

/pete

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:32:45 -0400

> *I* find it helpful) and searching be required also.

I would like to throw a few ideas into the pot. Our mailing lists use a
variety of subscription engines, and are scattered all over the place.
It would appear IETF has at least SOME computational resources as an
organization. Perhaps a few significant machines could materialize (any
computer makers care to make a donation?) and be used to run list
services for the WG lists, and host the archives in a consistent
fashion?

As someone else mentioned, there is occasionally a lack of consistency
to the lists and the methods used to host them.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        [email-masked]
Amaranth Networks Inc.            http://www.amaranthnetworks.com

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:32:45 -0400

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:04:30 +1000

If some sane mechanism for mirror distribution is used (eg rsync over ssh or
anonymous rsync) the AARN mirror (and I suspect many other mirrorsites) would
be delighted to host collections of WG list archives.

We already do RFC's and I-Drafts. the added load would be minimal.

Localizing access to this kind of thing makes sense. I use a variety of
list archives worldwide (freebsd.org, netbsd.org) and the performance of
these things over long wires is abysmal. 

I'd say this kind of thing is made significantly easier if there *is* a
nexus somewhere, under ietf.org badging which is a repositary of the WG
lists. Collating it across 101 distributed organizations, each with their
own policies and ACL issues is awful.

And I would add a hear-hear to the threading and indexing call as well. 

cheers
	-George
--
George Michaelson         |  DSTC Pty Ltd
Email: [email-masked]    |  University of Qld 4072
Phone: +61 7 3365 4310    |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3365 4311    |  http://www.dstc.edu.au

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:04:30 +1000

cheers
	-George

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:51:38 -0400

> be archived, with web access to individual messages.

I think this is raising the bar too high.  We have a difficult enough
time getting people to maintain reliable "native format" archives.
Adding "web access to individual messages", threading, and searching 
to the mix would be a significant addition to the burden.

Before we even think about requiring this for all working groups, we 
should try to identify a few examples of good list archives, identify
which software they use, and encourage (but not require) others to 
follow their example.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:51:38 -0400

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:56:07 +1000

The BSD archives are read by a similar sized body of people to IETF I think.

(ok probably not, but its within an order of magnitude)

FreeBSD uses mailindex, which is Perl5. The URL is:

	http://www.freebsd.org/~wosch/mailindex/

an example is

	http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/current/cvs-all.html

The ip-filter list which is a nice archive is a different example.		
http://false.net/ipfilter is using Hypermail. It has a very crisp look
and (to me at least) is functional. Hypermail had bad bugs a while back
which freaked the server if MIME bodyparts were in there. Maybe its back
on the development track now.

Samba is another package using Hypermail. It seems to behave pretty well
for their level of usage too (the CVS lists take a *lot* of traffic from
the atomic cvs commit messages.)

We use MHonArc internally. I like it a *lot*. But then I'm an MH-bigot.
MHonARC has scaling problems for larger lists. Its not insurmountable but
presumes a good sweep/archive cycle. the surrounding clutter in MHonARC
is very tunable. This I like.

I cite UNIX-centric archival/index methods. Its not apparent to me that
any other platform is going to encompass the kinds of behaviours people
will need from this service.

cheers
	-George

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:56:07 +1000

an example is

cheers
	-George

---

From: Eric Germann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:21:18 -0400

NANOG, IETF and a ton of other stuff indexed at http://www.cctec.com ->
Support

All the mailing lists are built nightly using mhonarc

served by MS IIS 4.0, indexed by Index Server, scripted by PerlScript

Index server is currently chugging away with ~ 3.2 million docs on a PII
450 with 384MB RAM and about 15% utilization.  And it ain't even SCSI
based, all IDE.

we also provide "channelization" of NANOG via IE Channels and Netscape
Netcaster.  Not rocket science, but it works.  We do ~ 400,000 hits per day
(more on weekends since people seem to want to update channels over the
weekend).

More details if anyone cares.

How many mailing lists/WG's we talking about here???  100, 1000, 10000???

Eric

>will need from this service.

==========================================================================
  Eric Germann                                        CCTec
  [email-masked]                                 Van Wert, OH 45891
  http://www.cctec.com                                Ph:  419 968 2640
  ICQ:  41927048                                      Fax: 419 968 2641
         Network Design, Connectivity & System Integration Services 
                     A Microsoft Solution Provider

---

From: Eric Germann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:21:18 -0400

Eric

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:55:59 +1000

Yea, I'd say it scales well on other platforms. Interesting that perl on MS
means the back-end of MHonArc is fine on both.

Hundreds of lists. not thousands. yet. 

So my gratuitous anti-MS trailer is bogus.

cheers
	-George

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:55:59 +1000

cheers
	-George

---

From: John Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:09:34 +0200

>and all IETF mailing lists have threaded web archives, right?

There is no consistency at all. Some WGs don't even have mailing list that 
work properly. For reasons I cannot fathom, some WG chairs expressed 
objectsion to the provision of a mailing list service by the IETF 
secretariat. [Lets not re-hash that discussion - I believe we reached a 
compromise.]

As for meetings outside meetings, I have found them to be useful; in many 
cases more useful than the meetings themselves (due to the ratio of active 
to non-active participants).

Rgds,
John
---------------------------------------------------------------
Network Appliance                  Main Office: +31 23 567 9600
Kruisweg 799                               Fax: +31 23 567 9699
NL-2132 NG Hoofddorp          Voicemail/Mobile: +31 654 308 275
---------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: John Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:09:34 +0200

Rgds,
John

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:55:59 +1000

cheers
	-George

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:55:59 +1000

cheers
	-George

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:51:38 -0400

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:51:38 -0400

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:58:53 -0700 (PDT)

> which software they use, and encourage (but not require) others to 

I agree ... as long as the IETF expects mailing lists for WGs to be
provided by volunteers, its pretty unreasonable to demand that 
every such volunteer will be willing to set up anything beyond the
list server.

Proven recommended software would go a long way to mitigate the effort.

The IETF could also choose to tax itself in the form of increased
meeting fees and have the secretariat take over providing list servers
for all WGs... Of course, considering how long it took for this list to
be managed by a 'modern' software tool, I'm not sure it would be 
effective to have the secretariat assume that responsiblity.

Threading and an effective search engine would be useful ... and in fact,
having the ability to search across all WG archives, IDs, RFCs, would be
helpful as well.

Of course, nothing says that the archive/thread:webservice/search would
have to be run by the WG list operator. It could be a centralized
service which just subscribed to each WG mailing list.

Dave Morris

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:58:53 -0700 (PDT)

Dave Morris