Subject: Suggest new mailing list for IASA stuff

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:41:24 -0500

The IASA, AdminRest et al discussions appear to be proceeding well, but 
perhaps it might make sense to craft a mailing list specifically for those 
discussions ?  Its possible the recent (last 2 week) upswing in the number 
of related posts to the ietf mailing list will die down shortly, but my 
guess is not.

Later, Mike

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:04:35 -0800

On Dec 9, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:

> The IASA, AdminRest et al discussions appear to be proceeding well, 
> but perhaps it might make sense to craft a mailing list specifically 
> for those discussions ?

I would like to second this suggestion.

>   Its possible the recent (last 2 week) upswing in the number of 
> related posts to the ietf mailing list will die down shortly, but my 
> guess is not.
>
> Later, Mike
>
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:03:43 -0500

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:41:24 EST, Michael StJohns said:
> discussions ?

On the one hand, part of me says "Amen, this stuff makes my brain hurt".

On the other hand, this one's important enough it probably needs to maintain
high visibility on this list (openness concerns and all that..).

The gripping hand would be represented here as well, but it's off hunting for
more caffeine....
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:19:49 -0500

Well, the choice to put this on the ietf-discuss list was deliberate:
including making sure that a reasonable cross section of the IETF
would see the discussion.  It's not at all clear that such a cross
section would bother to subscribe to a new mailing list (and a new
mailing list often just attracts the people who are interested
for the wrong reasons).

In my personal opinion, it would be better to leave the discussion
here at least until the last call on the BCP is done.  At that point,
we'll be into implementation, and if there are further
matters to discuss, it would be reasonable to say "we are now into
implementation phase, people who are interested can subscribe <here>".

Also, the threads are pretty easily identifiable (and skippable).

Again -- IMO.

Leslie.

Michael StJohns wrote:
> perhaps it might make sense to craft a mailing list specifically for 
> those discussions ?  Its possible the recent (last 2 week) upswing in 
> the number of related posts to the ietf mailing list will die down 
> shortly, but my guess is not.
> 
> Later, Mike
> 
> 

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:46:16 +0100

If I had confidence that the people discussing this in small groups were 
certain to distinguish between "direction" issues (should be discussed on 
the IETF list, because it affects too many people) and "wording" issues 
(may be discussed in a smaller group, because not that many people care), I 
might agree with you, Mike.

But I don't have quite that level of confidence in myself..... and I'd 
prefer to err on the side of inclusiveness.
Hopefully this (the direction-setting part) WILL be over soon, and we can 
all settle down and let "those who care" debate "the details" on some other 
mailing list....

                       Harald

--On torsdag, desember 09, 2004 11:41:24 -0500 Michael StJohns 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> those discussions ?  Its possible the recent (last 2 week) upswing in the
> number of related posts to the ietf mailing list will die down shortly,
> but my guess is not.
>
> Later, Mike
>
>

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:08:03 +0100

Leslie Daigle wrote:
|
| Well, the choice to put this on the ietf-discuss list was deliberate:
| including making sure that a reasonable cross section of the IETF
| would see the discussion.  It's not at all clear that such a cross
| section would bother to subscribe to a new mailing list (and a new
| mailing list often just attracts the people who are interested
| for the wrong reasons).
|
| In my personal opinion, it would be better to leave the discussion
| here at least until the last call on the BCP is done.  At that point,
| we'll be into implementation, and if there are further
| matters to discuss, it would be reasonable to say "we are now into
| implementation phase, people who are interested can subscribe <here>".
|
| Also, the threads are pretty easily identifiable (and skippable).

Indeed. I'd much rather see the various NAT tro^H^H^Hdiscussions go
to the apropriate place. The restructuring discussion is important for
the community as a whole. This is exactly imo why we have an ietf list.

	MVH leifj

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:53:11 -0800

> the community as a whole. This is exactly imo why we have an ietf list.

It's unfortunate we don't respect the wishes of the IETF, rather than 
telling them what's good for them. IMO, the IETF _is_ the participants, 
and the WG chairs, IESG, and IAB, etc. serve them. We reject kings, 
remember?

Whether it's the AdminRest, or other technical topics, it's the 
community's decision whether to track something.

Joe

---

From: Charlie P <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:55:44 -0800

Hello Joe,

I'm not the IETF, and I'm not telling anyone what to do,
but I _hope_ the discussion remains on the IETF list.

Regards,
Charlie P.

Joe Touch wrote:

> telling them what's good for them. IMO, the IETF _is_ the 
> participants, and the WG chairs, IESG, and IAB, etc. serve them. We 
> reject kings, remember?
>

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:04:52 -0500

You're missing the point.  The topic is important enough to have its own 
list, to make sure it stands out from the rash of 2-3 day hot topics that 
tend to clutter the list.  As it stands I can't filter this traffic (which 
I'm tracking) from the run of the mill IETF traffic which I more times than 
not ignore.

Moving it to its own list gives us a handle to be enable our email clients 
to filter it appropriately.  The IETF list constituents are smart enough to 
be able to figure out how to subscribe to the new list if they want to 
track this. And those that really want to focus on technical issues don't 
have to spend time pressing the delete buttons.

The IETF list is for TRANSIENT issues of interest to the broader 
community.  The list is supposed to be used roughly like the calling 
channels on marine radio - for initial contact, not for extended discussion.

Quoting from the list policy:  "The IETF discussion list is meant for 
initial discussion only. Discussions that fall within the area of any 
working group list (or other well established list) should be moved to that 
more specific list as soon as this is pointed out, unless the issue is one 
for which the working group needs wider input or direction."

This is no longer transient or initial.  The argument that the WG needs 
wider direction doesn't apply as the IETF has been made aware of the 
general nature of things and can participate if it wants.  When there's 
some consensus, the broader IETF may again be made aware of the specifics 
and solicited for its input.

At 01:46 PM 12/9/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>(may be discussed in a smaller group, because not that many people care), 
>I might agree with you, Mike.
>
>all settle down and let "those who care" debate "the details" on some 
>other mailing list....
>
>                       Harald
>