Re: [rfc-i] Public archival of AUTH48 communications

["touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why are we trying to do something with email that might be better handled with a more semantically rich technology, e.g., an issue tracker?

That way, the info is organized and can be cross-linked without needing copies.

Joe

—

Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist

www.strayalpha.com

On Feb 25, 2022, at 7:46 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2022-02-25, at 15:18, Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't object to a separate list that WG members could subscribe to.

Doubles the number of lists I need to subscribe to.

I think I’d prefer the AUTH48 list.

(But I do understand the preference here will depend on whether you employ a mail client that has functionality for handling non-trivial mail sources.)

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest