<inline>
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henning Schulzrinne" <hgs(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu>
To: <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>
Cc: "lconroy" <lconroy(_at_)insensate(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion(Re: Tracking resolution of
DISCUSSes)
The table of mappings constitutes an on-going administrative
challenge. Also as noted, not all I-Ds are tied to working groups.
But every draft should be able to fit into one of the IETF areas;
Not sure about the should but the really is that they do not.
One close to my heart is URI which belongs in every area which has a protocol:-)
The practicality is that it is hosted outside the IETF and a recent post there,
relating to a very worthy piece of work, asked how to get this to be an RFC.
Such questions show that we are not doing as well as we SHOULD.
all
areas have, as far as I know, area-wide mailing lists. At least for
TSV, the list has often been used as a catch-all for things that
didn't quite fit elsewhere.
Setting up a mailing list for each personal draft, with unclear 'note
well' rules and archiving status, seems counterproductive.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
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