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:
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
<mstjohns(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com> 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 ? 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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf