Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050721151256.04caa520@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:30:57 +0200
To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <42DF7CB7.9020905@zurich.ibm.com>
References: <2005720144927.154299@bbprime>
	<79FD2E3E0800BB9E9594C8BE@gloppen.hjemme.alvestrand.no>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050721033200.04941ab0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<42DF7CB7.9020905@zurich.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: ietf mailing list Acceptable Use Policy
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On 12:45 21/07/2005, Brian E Carpenter said:
>One rule of any list policy would be: stick to the subject or change the 
>subject header, I think.
>Brian

Difficult to know if this is or not the subject. I think it is for two 
reasons, I might have more precisely documented:

1. There are at least three areas where non WG list exist:

- discussing draft. The owner is clearly the author of the Draft and the 
list is temporary

- the IANA registries as the list is attached to the Registry and therefore 
permanent. The use policy is then by the owner of the list, normally the IANA.

A second problem is that the "acceptable use policy" is mainly seen from an 
existing membership point of view. The main problem observed in the case of 
ietf-languages@alvestrand.no mailing list for the RFC 3066 registry Harald 
quotes, is the policy towards non members. This means the lack of exposure 
of the list in the IANA site and the difficulty in getting subscribed. This 
leads people concerned by the decision taken not to be even aware of their 
discussion. I use the case of that list because I know it and Harald quotes 
it. But I suppose it is the same for other registries? Also, the IANA 
section - or other documents - does not indicate who is the mailing list 
responsible. There is (I use the case of that list) an examiner (other RFC 
may use different names, so I use the name of the function) designed by the 
IESG, but its exact role, the duration and the powers of his mandate are 
not defined.

- there can also be other lists, like the follow-up of a closed WG were all 
the solutions were not found.

2. I fully support the idea of a list of the IETF lists. This is exactly an 
item in the "Internet Book" chapter: each section should probably position 
the theme in a global networking model, list the involved WGs and concerned 
RFCs, give an historic of the standardisation, describe the best practices, 
document existing experimentations, link running code sources, catalogue 
software providers and equipment manufacturers (showing the topic is 
addressed in an open manner), list the interested sites and organisations, 
etc. and list the current mailing lists and their relations to the 
different SDOs, authors, registries.

jfc



>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>>Dear Harald,
>>At 01:14 21/07/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>
>>>So I resorted to "here's what would happen if this was a WG list, and I 
>>>had the power of the WG chair to control the list, and because I run the 
>>>list, I'm going to make it happen".
>>
>>Did you? I will not dispute here the way a proposition of your consortium 
>>tries to exclude Open Source propositions and every further innovation 
>>from multilingual network development area. I will just thank you to 
>>repeat you are the private owner of a public IANA list documented by an 
>>RFC (of yours). This is why il will not tease your "WG procedure" without 
>>proper steps, concerted ADs, appeal, etc.
>>To come back to your answer: one must add RFC 2860 for registry lists 
>>which should be/are own by the IANA.
>>
>>>One of the signs of a maturing organization is said to be that it relies 
>>>upon explicit rules rather than people's individual judgment. One of the 
>>>signs of an ossifying organization is said to be that it has rules for 
>>>everything.
>>
>>What then to say of an organisation with 4200+ RFCs?
>>This shows how complex the IETF has become and the necessity documented 
>>by many outside of an "Intenet Book" maintaining, along a clear, accepted 
>>and stable "table of content", the matter and the experience (also 
>>included in obsoleted ones) of these 4200 RFCs.
>>Brian, it also shows the necessity, IMHO, of a WG-IANA to work on the 
>>many details of a complete review of RFC 2860, 2434, etc. extending to a 
>>standard Registry framework management by IETF and ICANN.
>>jfc
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf