Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

> From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email protected]>
> To: "Vernon Schryver" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
>    <[email protected]>, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Einar Vollset" <[email protected]>,
>    <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
>    <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
>    <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
>    <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
>    <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
>    <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
>    "Vernon Schryver" <[email protected]>,
>    "Kamesh Medepalli" <[email protected]>

> It appears that it was a bad idea to put a BOF discussion on an existing WG list.  We
> are getting way to much noise from the peanut gallery.  Can anybody suggest a list
> or host a list for the L2  triggers BOF so that interested parties can have a friendly
> discourse without getting pilcers up in arms?   BTW, everyone will be welcome to the
> new list.  I just want to avoid drive by sniping at the BOF discussions.  I also want
> to encourage people to speak up without feeling shut down by uninterested parties.


If you really need an official mailing list for a discussion among one
or two dozen people and don't have your own SMTP server, you might try
one of the free mailing list outfits.  I've heard http://groups.yahoo.com/
mentioned most frequently.  It is in a lot of anti-spam blacklists,
because Yahoo allegedly doesn't care enough about its abuse by spammers.
However, that sort of problem often comes with "free."

Interest among prospective authors is necessary but not sufficient
for standards track documents.  If you got a charter approved and a
WG created, any standards track documents it produced would have to
survive Last Call in a pompous peanut gallery of people who have
actually worked on the stuff you propose to standardize and control.
Even an Informational RFC would need IESG approval, although that
would not be a problem.

Again, the reasons I trust there is no hope of a standards track L2
Triggers RFC do not apply to an Information RFC.  As has been said
repeatedly, an Informational RFC on L2 triggers could be valuable.
Why are you so set the standards track?


Vernon Schryver    [email protected]

_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/