That’s why I said “may not”, because is a bit fuzzy and probably subjective if this work make sense to be discussed in this list vs. asking the IESG to create a specific mail exploder and so on. RFC3005 indicates that “technical issues that are candidates for IETF work” are appropriate, but also I think this thread could create a bunch of controversial and unnecessary discussion (vs. the actual IPv6 adoption status). Yes, it may be a bit subjective, and some times my job is not easy as you may guess, but I wanted to make sure the “may not”, and providing orientation to possible alternative paths, such as talking to IESG for an alternative exploder, etc. The difference between this and other postings is clear, when I directly ask for completely stopping a given thread. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Organización: Brandenburg InternetWorking Responder a: <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx> Fecha: jueves, 10 de diciembre de 2015, 17:32 Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> CC: <al4321@xxxxxxxxx>, <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Asunto: Re: Introducing : Brand-new Internet Protocol "Five Fields" >On 12/10/2015 5:00 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> I think this topic may be not appropriate for this list, unless it is submitted as an IETF ID. > >I'm always glad to see active seargant-at-arms efforts, attending to >mailing list propriety. > >But I cannot guess at the basis for claiming Eromenko's posting was >inappropriate. What policy or documented practice does it violate? > >I am not aware of any IETF or ietf mailing list requirement that a new >topic first have an I-D before it is 'proper' to discuss it. > >There are considerable benefits in pressing a proponent to write up a >specification, so that people can discuss concrete specifics, rather >than vague ideas. So offering the guidance as a strong encouragement is >reasonable, of course. But the efficacy of this is quite independent of >formal institutional rules. > >(An in case this isn't clear, I'm not offering an opinion on the merits >of Eromenko's proposal, merely about the propriety of the posting.) > >d/ > >-- >Dave Crocker >Brandenburg InternetWorking >bbiw.net >