Subject: ietf-moms

From: "IETF member Dave Aronson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:17:00 +0000

Michael Richardson [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

 > If there is interest, I will make a list. If someone has a more PC
 > name, I'll use it.

As we all know, the absolutely most critically important thing about any project, and a mailing list should be no exception, is its name.  It should be something already recognizable as having some memorable meaning, that ideally has nothing whatsoever to do with its actual purpose.

Therefore, I propose IETF-SOS: IETF Significant OtherS.  Of course, in normal discourse that last S would be lowercase, to show that it is pluralizing the acronym, not adding on another word.  However, making that clear would deprive the anal-retentive of yet another fun thing to argue about.

(Worried that using the last letter is not permitted?  There is precedent, set by Bill Watterson: GROSS.)

-Dave

-- 
Dave Aronson
"Specialization is for insects."  -Heinlein
Work: http://www.davearonson.com/
Play: http://www.davearonson.net/

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

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 10:01:21 +0000

On Thu Feb  1 19:17:00 2007, IETF member Dave Aronson wrote:
> As we all know, the absolutely most critically important thing 
> about any project, and a mailing list should be no exception, is 
> its name.  It should be something already recognizable as having 
> some memorable meaning, that ideally has nothing whatsoever to do 
> with its actual purpose.
> 
> Therefore, I propose IETF-SOS: IETF Significant OtherS.  Of course, 
> in normal discourse that last S would be lowercase, to show that it 
> is pluralizing the acronym, not adding on another word.  However, 
> making that clear would deprive the anal-retentive of yet another 
> fun thing to argue about.

I don't understand why the proposed participants of this list should 
ignore the well-established procedures of the IETF in such a 
wholesale manner.

Surely we should consider forming a working group to establish the 
requirements, preferably publishing its findings an an Informational 
document.

 From there, the WG should recharter, causing an endless argument on 
the list about whether its requirements have been met already, and if 
so, by which extant Area.

With rechartering abandoned, a new working group should be proposed, 
and put through the BoF process, in which several prominent IETFers 
will argue that the entire process is flawed, or that the name is not 
representative, or finally that it represents a sneak attack on the 
standards process by some corporation with a proprietary interest.

After this, the exhausted members of the new WG will cobble together 
a set of RFCs which ignore the requirements document, now several 
years out of date, culminating in a document which is never finished, 
causing it to either languish as a draft or be published as-is with 
considerable shuffling of feet.

This will represent the document explaining clearly, to interested 
participants, precisely what this list might have been for, if only 
the document had been finished, thus eliminating any concern about 
what the name of the list might have stood for had it actually been 
created.

Frankly, your suggestion that we should ignore existing precedent 
astounds me, and compells me to mount a vacuous ad hominen attack on 
you on this list.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:06:30 +0000

And think of the Security Considerations section.  (And do we need IANA
considerations, too?)

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 07:55:16 -0800

> And think of the Security Considerations section.  (And do we need IANA

For this subject, there is absolutely no way to avoid an 
internationalization considerations section - and of course the scalability 
considerations section needs to be *extensive*!

              Harald

(seriously: Just Do It!)

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:51:18 -0800

>(seriously: Just Do It!)

Isn't this a perfect test case for the IETF meeting Wiki? I know that 
there was little contribution in San Diego, but this sounds like a 
good opportunity to see if folks can find and edit the wiki.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:24:39 +0100

Paul Hoffman wrote:

> there was little contribution in San Diego, but this sounds like
> a good opportunity to see if folks can find and edit the wiki.

I found it but couldn't edit it, so that question is IMO answered.

Frank

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:11:36 -0500

Is there any IPR that needs to be disclosed related to such a list? 

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:55 AM
> To: Steven M. Bellovin; Dave Cridland
> Cc: Dave Aronson; IETF-Discussion
> Subject: Re: ietf-moms
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:45:06 -0000

Michael,

> One just can tell one's 9 year-old to change the diapers
> of the 2 year old.

Sure you can.

Now, getting the desired response may be harder.

Adrian

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:50:15 -0500

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:06:51 -0500
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> Further, as the "technology" matures, one can't tell a 14-year old
> anything. (I've noticed the latter only second hand.
> Okay, I saw it on TV.)
> 
That gets worse, too, as the teenager "progresses".  I'm speaking from
close-up observational experience of one current and one former
teenager... 

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb