Steven,
There's a certain (very much non-zero) cost associated with
announcing _anything_ very widely. Generally it means the person
making the announcement has to subscribe to the list (and hope the
list manager does not filter the announcement anyway) - in part so
that it will actually get posted and in part to capture comments
made on each list that do not also get posted to an appropriate
list (no matter what the announcement says, this will happen). In
addition, there have been complaints in the past to the general
use of cross-posting, and some list managers may even be actively
filtering (for moderation in any case) on the basis of these prior
complaints.
I suspect that posting it to the IETF mailing list must be
considered sufficient, with the understanding that people who care
are subscribed to this list. Better to expect people to subscribe
to this list to find out about stuff like BoFs and new mailing
lists than to declare open season on all mailing lists. If others,
who already subscribe to additional lists, want to repost these on
those other lists (as an FYI, because they feel they are relevant),
that would take care of widening of the potential audience.
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
--> On Behalf Of Steven M. Bellovin
--> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 9:11 PM
--> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
--> Cc: Ted Hardie; dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: IETF 65 BOF Announcement: Digital Identity
--> Exchange (DIX)
-->
--> In message
-->
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070128B68C(_at_)dul1wnexmb01(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn
--> .com>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" writes:
-->
--> >
--> >What sort of manner is that, Dave? That's a serious
--> question. There is
--> >an open mailing list on which discussion has been taking
--> place since the
--> >Vancouver meeting. There is still a month to continue
--> discussion before
--> >Dallas. If something is too broad or not clear, please share your
--> >thoughts on the dix list so that appropriate changes can
--> be considered.
--> >
-->
--> I think Dave has a point. It's not that there should be an active
--> mailing list first -- ADs generally require a list and an
--> I-D first,
--> per RFC 2418 (a pointer to which should be in
--> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1bof-procedures.txt). The problem is that
--> most people don't know about BoFs. I might be interested
--> in tracking
--> this one, but I learned of it only through John's voluntary
--> posting to
--> the IETF list. I agree with Dave -- BoFs should indeed be
--> posted to
--> the ietf-announce list as soon as they're approved. (By the same
--> token, people proposing BoFs should announce their mailing
--> lists quite
--> widely. This one, for example, should have been sent to
--> the SAAG list,
--> among many other places, given the strong interest many
--> security folks
--> have in such issues.)
-->
--> --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
-->
-->
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> 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