-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Leslie Daigle wrote:
|
| Well, the choice to put this on the ietf-discuss list was deliberate:
| including making sure that a reasonable cross section of the IETF
| would see the discussion. It's not at all clear that such a cross
| section would
Leif Johansson wrote:
Leslie Daigle wrote:
|
| Well, the choice to put this on the ietf-discuss list was deliberate:
| including making sure that a reasonable cross section of the IETF
| would see the discussion. It's not at all clear that such a cross
| section would bother to subscribe to a
Hello Joe,
I'm not the IETF, and I'm not telling anyone what to do,
but I _hope_ the discussion remains on the IETF list.
Regards,
Charlie P.
Joe Touch wrote:
It's unfortunate we don't respect the wishes of the IETF, rather than
telling them what's good for them. IMO, the IETF _is_ the
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
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
On Dec 9, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Michael StJohns 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 ?
I would like to second this suggestion.
Its possible the recent (last 2 week)
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:41:24 EST, Michael StJohns said:
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 ?
On the one hand, part of me says Amen, this stuff makes my brain hurt.
On
Well, the choice to put this on the ietf-discuss list was deliberate:
including making sure that a reasonable cross section of the IETF
would see the discussion. It's not at all clear that such a cross
section would bother to subscribe to a new mailing list (and a new
mailing list often just
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
