Subject: Re: [dnsext] Progress on moving the mailing list

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:06:18 -0400

On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 03:43:37AM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i feel strongly.  it's always been namedroppers.  before there was an ietf
> in its current, there was a namedroppers mailing list.  if ietf doesn't want
> to run the namedroppers mailing list (by that name) others should so offer.

Would it be acceptable to have a [email-masked] alias, or is it
necessary to create the list under the name [email-masked] and
have an alias from [email-masked]?

If the latter, does anyone want to address Bill Manning's point that,
given that namedroppers has not always been the address for _this
working group's_ mailing list, reusing that list name for this WG
might be confusing?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:53:32 -0400

>Would it be acceptable to have a [email-masked] alias, or is it

Why over engineer?  What's wrong with the current set up?

More appropriately, what current problem would a new set up solve? 
(Meaning, we have a lot of run-on threads, but that's not the problem 
caused by the mail list name.)

I'm not overly wedded to or sentimental about the name "namedroppers" 
but why change from it?   OTOH, I would get a chance to update my 
mail filters.  Joy.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

Ever get the feeling that someday if you google for your own life story,
you'll find that someone has already written it and it's on sale at Amazon?

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:00:10 -0400

The address namedroppers is hardwired in places as well

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Sep 2010, at 17:48, Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Howdy,
> 
> Any strong reason it shouldn't be "[email-masked]"?  That list
> name has a lot of history behind it, and having a consistent thread of
> conversation connected to the name, if not its host, seems to me worth it.
> An alias from [email-masked] to [email-masked] could be kept for
> those wanting the WG Name pointer.
> 
> Full disclosure:  I was briefly the list monkey at SRI who kept
> namedroppers@sri-nic
> up, and I am likely being nostalgic.
> 
> Ted
> 
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> Some time ago, we said we were going to move the WG mailing list from
>> [email-masked] to [email-masked].  This sort of fell off
>> the radar as it looked like the WG was running out of things to do & I
>> absurdly thought we might actually wind up or go back to sleep or
>> something.  But with the rechartering in motion, it seemed to me we
>> ought to make good on this.
>> 
>> We've started the process, so the list [email-masked] has been created.
>> 
>> At the moment, it has no members, and if you post to it your message
>> will be moderated (and then we'll reject it).
>> 
>> Over the coming period, we will subscribe all the existing
>> namedroppers members to the [email-masked] list.  You will receive a
>> message when this happens.  If you don't want to receive dnsext mail
>> messages, then please unsubscribe then, or unsubscribe from
>> namedroppers now.
>> 
>> We will ask the operators of the namedroppers list to put an alias
>> forwarding messaages to namedroppers instead to the dnsext list, and
>> not to accept new subscriptions to namedroppers.  You won't get
>> duplicate messages during the change over, and you won't lose mail to
>> the list.  There will probably be a short period when new messages to
>> the list are disallowed, and if you have filters that are using the
>> exiting namedroppers headers, you will need to update them.
>> 
>> I will post another announcement in the future with firm dates for the
>> cutover.  I will give people ample notice of the cutover date so that
>> they may update their filters.  In the meantime, the mail address will
>> be [email-masked] and the RFC 2369 headers will follow the pattern of
>> all the other lists hosted in the IETF mail infrastructure.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> A
>> 
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> [email-masked]
>> Shinkuro, Inc.
>> 
>> 
>

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:10:10 -0400

> Why over engineer?  What's wrong with the current set up?

The reasons to move the list we outlined some time ago, but it comes
down to the following:

- the list is hosted on a machine with volunteer admins

- it uses majordomo, the administration of which effectively requires
  shell access (so we need administrators to be available, and they're
  not always)

We've had several cases in the past where it has been difficult to
solve a problem because nobody with shell access was available to fix
it.  Moreover, certain things that are easy with mailman are hard with
majordomo.  Finally, the spam filtering on the ietf-managed list
systems seems to be a little bit better (there's a lot of spam in the
moderation queue).  Finally, adding people to the whitelist for the
list is one of those things that requires shell access, but I
understand IETF whitelists are linked across lists.

> but why change from it?

Since the mail list name has to change anyway (we're moving from
ops.ietf.org in any case), I figured it would be as well to conform to
the IETF convention for this.  But I've asked the ADs whether it's ok
to violate that convention.  One of them has already said he doesn't
care much.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 21:12:46 -0400

How about change the list name to [email-masked] and make
[email-masked] and [email-masked] aliases?

I think we definitely need an alias or else people trying to cc the DNSEXT
WG are going to miss.

One of the consequences of the lists moving to ietf.org is that they now
represent institutional memory that often extends beyond the lifetime of the
original WG. It is quite possible that in ten years time that DNSEXT will be
closed, but there will still be a need for ongoing observation and
discussion of DNS issues.

It is even quite possible that at some point in the future there might be a
DNSEXT2 come out of those discussions and the same community of interest
would be engaged so the namedroppers list could become a WG list a third
time.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 04:52:39 +0000

> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:06:18 -0400
> From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
> 
> > i feel strongly.  it's always been namedroppers.  before there was an
> > ietf in its current, there was a namedroppers mailing list.  if ietf
> > doesn't want to run the namedroppers mailing list (by that name) others
> > should so offer.
> 

it's my preference that it be called by its eternal name ("namedroppers@"),
and that no new name (such as "dnsext@") be created, and so, no aliases.

> given that namedroppers has not always been the address for _this working
> group's_ mailing list, reusing that list name for this WG might be
> confusing?

dnsind and dnsext have always used "namedroppers@".  i think bill's point
was that "namedroppers@" predates these working groups and indeed was once
used ("@sri-nic.arpa") to discuss non-DNS naming systems.  i'm uncompelled
by this argument.  when the internet community has discussed naming at the
protocol level, they've always called the forum "namedroppers@", and i sort
of like it like that.  but, i fibbed before.  i feel moderately about it,
not strongly.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 01:24:35 -0400

I think we need an alias because otherwise there is going to have to be an
exception coded into various tools scripts.

The alternative may well turn out to be that DNSEXT does not get informed
when it probably should be. People from outside DNSEXT will try to send mail
and it will bounce. It is quite possible that something important will
bounce and not get resent.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 22:02:11 -0700

On 9/30/2010 2:21 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> forwarding messaages to namedroppers instead to the dnsext list

+1 to the move
+1 to keeping "namedroppers" as _the_ name of the list. This is a bit of 
historical cleverness that was one of the first things that impressed me 
about the IETF.

About the aliases, I think that rather than a transparent proxy the 
current namedroppers list should reply with a bounce message that says 
"Your message didn't go through, send it to [email-masked] 
instead." Otherwise people will just keep using the old list, and not be 
given a reason to change. Also, having mail on the list with multiple 
different To: addresses, all valid, will generate needless confusion.

I agree with the argument that having a [email-masked] alias is 
desirable, but I'm ambivalent about how it should be configured. IFF it 
can be set up in such a way that we don't get mail on the list with "To: 
[email-masked]" then fine, alias away. Otherwise my preference would be 
the same kind of bounce message as above.

hth,

Doug (too bad it was all downhill from there ...)

-- 

Breadth of IT experience, and    |   Nothin' ever doesn't change,
depth of knowledge in the DNS.   |   but nothin' changes much.
Yours for the right price.  :)   |		-- OK Go
http://SupersetSolutions.com/

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 19:08:43 -0400

Dear colleagues,

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 05:21:35PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> [email-masked] to [email-masked].  

The ADs did not object, and the secretariat has accordingly created
[email-masked].  I'll proceed according to the plan I outlined,
modulo this difference.  (But I probably won't get to it this week.)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:27:37 +0900

[email-masked] wrote:

> 	Its high time that
> 	we retired the old name and used a name that properly reflects
> 	the work that is being/planned for the DNS protocol ... perhaps
> 
> 	[email-masked]  - general DNS discussion
> 	[email-masked]       - extentions to the DNS

If something should change, dnsext should disappear first, as we
should not encourage but discourage extensions on DNS.

I welcome creation of

	[email-masked]

to obsolete useless complications of DNS such as localized (and not
internationalized) domain names, DNSSEC, DNAME, A6, AAAA and so on.

							Masataka Ohta