On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2 - as to this list - I've no problem at all with having
a very low bar for new lists, and there is perhaps a topic
for the IETF here - it's just not possible to tell from
the draft.
Right now, the IETF isn't involved, other than we're hosting the mailing list. Unless you think Github is "involved" in the QUIC WG.
Basically, I'd just prefer that the IETF not
be involved in discussion of the cybercardinality of
cyberangels on cyberpinheads;-)
You'll have your chance to offer that perspective if/when this is proposed as IETF work.
-Ekr
Cheers,
S.
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> On 13/09/18 03:37, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> This really should have come with a fuller description: I shouldn't
>>> have to contact the list admins just to find out whether a new mailing
>>> list ought to be on my radar or not.
>>
>> Yeah. And the archive's empty. And it uses the almost
>> always meaningless prefix "cyber" over and over in
>> many predictable (but meaningless) ways.
>>
>
> Well, the archive is empty because it was created today, so I don't think
> that's much of a critique.
>
> I'll take responsibility for not insisting on there being a very detailed
> description. I generally find the descriptions pretty uninformative (see,
> for instance https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm ) so my bar isn't
> very high here, but I see how others might feel differently.
>
>
>
> So that's all bad signs IMO then (except for the
>> existence of the draft.)
>>
>> I'm also a bit sad that we've gotten to the point
>> where we're setting up lists driven to any extent
>> by what's really an ill-defined marketing buzzword.
>>
>
>> OTOH, the goal according to [1] is an information
>> model, so it could be mostly to totally harmless I
>> guess;-)
>>
>> Only other thing to note is that this happens so
>> often (new list for who knows what) that maybe the
>> tooling's a bit wrong and encourages folks to ok
>> or ask for lists without considering that others
>> don't have the same (or any) context.
>>
>
> I think you and I are just going to have to disagree here. Lists are cheap
> -- they're not WGs -- and I bias in favor of facilitating discussion. I
> think this is appropriate especially in view of the fact that one of the
> first questions we ask for a proposed BOF is whether there has been a lot
> of list traffic. Again, you're free to feel differently.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>
>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jordan-cacao-introduction- 00
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Barry
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:58 PM, IETF Secretariat
>>> <ietf-secretariat@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
>>>>
>>>> List address: cacao@xxxxxxxx
>>>> Archive: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cacao/
>>>> To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cacao
>>>>
>>>> Purpose:
>>>> This email list will be used to discuss Collaborative Automated Course
>> of
>>>> Action Operations (CACAO) for Cyber Security
>>>>
>>>> For additional information, please contact the list administrators.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
