ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: off-list, Re: IAB/ISOC not IETF Charter Re: What isat stake? Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification

2002-01-24 13:00:03
--On Thursday, 24 January, 2002 11:23 -0800 Ed Gerck
<egerck(_at_)nma(_dot_)com> wrote:

Now, let me summarize Case 3 -- which I briefly outlined
before:

            Case 3. The IETF discusses and provides a simple,
text-based, format             for communications sent to a
set of Non-Conformance Lists divided             in areas. All
NCL communications must have headers that match the
predefined format, and are parsed/routed for their purposes,
but no body text             (where the communication actually
resides, the rest is addressing and             structure) is
ever parsed. Communications that do not match the format,
are rejected -- after all, they are non-conforming.
Subscribers to each             NCL will receive the
respective postings, that may also be publicly read
in web archives. Only subscribers to each NCL may post. There
are no             replies to NCL communications. All
communications are the exclusive             responsibility of
the authors, with an IETF hosting content disclaimer similar
to those used by webhosting services. Communications expire in
one year,             but may be freely renewed after
expiration. Once posted, a  communication             may be
deleted by request from the poster herself, by the IETF or
when it             expires. It may only be deleted by the
IETF if it is clearly spam or if there is             a legal
order to do so. The hosting content disclaimer, complete
absence             of editorial control in technical matters
and yielding to legal orders should              avoid the
liability issues, but legal counsel  must be consulted before
the              service starts.  The NCL should be free for
mirroring elsewhere.

Since all NCL communications are under the exclusive
responsability of their own authors, both to post AND delete,
the authors are thereby encouraged to be responsible ... or
else. For  additional details, see the posting below.

Comments?

Yes.  Administering this would be an additional burden on an
already-overextended IETF Secretariat and the entities who have
to manage them (primarily the IETF Chair and the IESG) and that
there would be little value-added in having the IETF somehow
associated with the process. If there were significant value
associated with IETF involvement, I'd think about it
differently, but, defined this way, you are suggesting adding
additional responsibilities, however small, to a Secretariat and
an IESG that some members of the community feel is already
stretched too thin and holding things up too much.  Substituting
the IAB for the IESG in that oversight role wouldn't change
much, the RFC Editor (another possible arrangement for
maintaining the lists and archives) is stretched pretty thin
too, and so on.

That doesn't make the _concept_ a bad one --I personally find it
somewhat attractive although I remain skeptical about
significnat impact for the reasons I outlined-- but I would
encourage you to find someplace outside the IETF to host and
manage it.

    john