Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
The table of mappings constitutes an on-going administrative
challenge. Also as noted, not all I-Ds are tied to working groups.
But every draft should be able to fit into one of the IETF areas;
...
Setting up a mailing list for each personal draft, with unclear 'note
well' rules and archiving status, seems counterproductive.
You have drawn two implications that I did not intend:
1. Choice of area often is not straightforward and an author new to the IETF
often does not know what with which to claim "affiliation". This reduces to:
there is currently no requirement for an I-D to declare affiliation and you
appear expect to change that.
2. There is a difference between listing a mailing list venue, versus creating
a new venue for each draft. I am suggesting the former, not the latter. I-Ds
often can specify an existing list. I should also comment that pre-wg venues
typically do not have clear rules and archiving status. While it is worth
exploring development of guidance for proto-wg lists, I hope that is treated as
something entirely different from whether an I-D states where discussion about
it should occur.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf