Subject: Re: Submission of Internet Drafts

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:26:43 -0700

>after 2026 was compleeted it was noted that no email address had been
>provided for the IETF Secretariat - this was fixed in RFC 2418
>
>   ...IESG Secretariat: [email-masked].

Actually, when I first ran into this problem as a WG chair, I read 2026
and 2418 and thought that probably the IESG Secretariat and the IETF
Secretariat were different, and that I should keep looking for the
address for the IETF Secretariat.

>The address "[email-masked]" does not appear in our standards
>process documents

No, it doesn't.  It does appear a few places on the IETF web site, as the
address of the "IETF Secretariat", which is who 2026 says to contact.
Since we we always tell people to use [email-masked] instead,
but [email-masked] is the address most easily mapped to the
directions in 2026, I think we have a problem.

  Bill

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 21:40:30 -0400 (EDT)

> directions in 2026, I think we have a problem.

yup - that problem was discussed in the IESG many years ago (a few years
after 2026 was approved) - the obvious solution to many of us at the
time was to map [email-masked] to [email-masked]
(so that requests would go into the same queue) - at the time
the IETF Exdir was reluctant to do so because the ietf-secretariat
address was used for too many things.

I'm not sure that is still a problem so I don't see why we
can't deal with the problem by having the two addresees go
to the same queue into the same ticket system

Scott

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:10:59 -0700

Yes, I agree. This has tripped me up a couple of times too.

            jak