On 2022-02-25, at 16:58, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Just one small comment below. > >> On 25. Feb 2022, at 16:46, 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. > > But you don’t have to subscribe to any new list. I’d have to so I can make timely use of the transparency functionality proposed. (I’d actually use the IETF’s IMAP server directly instead of an SMTP subscription, but I’d still need to do this a large number of times.) > Those people who get the AUTH48 mails today would still get them directly - so now change needed. Understood. > The intend is actually that people won’t subscribe to the list but only can use the archives to look up anything if needed. After the damage is done? Sure, that is useful, but being informed in real-time so damage can be prevented is more useful. > Of course we can’t stop anybody from subscribing but that is really not the intention here. It sure would be mine. Grüße, Carsten
