That’s why I said “may not”, because is a bit fuzzy and probably subjective if
this work make sense to be discussed in this list vs. asking the IESG to
create a specific mail exploder and so on.
RFC3005 indicates that “technical issues that are candidates for IETF work” are
appropriate, but also I think this thread could create a bunch of controversial
and unnecessary discussion (vs. the actual IPv6 adoption status).
Yes, it may be a bit subjective, and some times my job is not easy as you may
guess, but I wanted to make sure the “may not”, and providing orientation to
possible alternative paths, such as talking to IESG for an alternative
exploder, etc.
The difference between this and other postings is clear, when I directly ask
for completely stopping a given thread.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
Organización: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Responder a: <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>
Fecha: jueves, 10 de diciembre de 2015, 17:32
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
CC: <al4321(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>, <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: Introducing : Brand-new Internet Protocol "Five Fields"
On 12/10/2015 5:00 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I think this topic may be not appropriate for this list, unless it is
submitted as an IETF ID.
I'm always glad to see active seargant-at-arms efforts, attending to
mailing list propriety.
But I cannot guess at the basis for claiming Eromenko's posting was
inappropriate. What policy or documented practice does it violate?
I am not aware of any IETF or ietf mailing list requirement that a new
topic first have an I-D before it is 'proper' to discuss it.
There are considerable benefits in pressing a proponent to write up a
specification, so that people can discuss concrete specifics, rather
than vague ideas. So offering the guidance as a strong encouragement is
reasonable, of course. But the efficacy of this is quite independent of
formal institutional rules.
(An in case this isn't clear, I'm not offering an opinion on the merits
of Eromenko's proposal, merely about the propriety of the posting.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net