Eh I saw it fly by, then did a datatracker search on caco and found the draft. I guess more info would have saved me some time, but I’m kind of used to following references and searching the datatracker at this point. spt > On Sep 13, 2018, at 01:58, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I agree that lists are cheap and that one of our main jobs is to > facilitate discussion, so I have no issue with the creation of the > list. I just hoped for a bit more explanation -- even "For details > see <this draft>" would have helped (I didn't know there was a draft > at all). > > Anyway, just for future reference; thanks for listening. > > Barry > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Full disclosure: I approved this list, so feel free to be unhappy at me. >> >> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > > > > -- > Barry > -- > Barry Leiba (barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx) > http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/ >
