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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf