Subject: Proposal to move all IETF Mail Lists to ietf.org

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:10:22 -0400

Dear WG Chairs:

The transition from NSS to AMS for IETF Secretariat services has shed 
light on many topics.  The light is not a result of things being done 
improperly by one vendor or the other.  Rather, it is due to the 
increased attention associated with the transition.  One of the 
things that concerns me as IETF Chair is archives of IETF mail 
lists.  The transition has clearly highlighted that we do not archive 
non-ietf.org mail lists as consistently as ietf.org mail lists.

The archive for non-ietf.org mail lists happens my enrolling a mail 
list member to collect the messages for archival on the IETF web 
site.  All kinds of things go wrong, and these members get dropped 
from the mail list.  Also, the archive recipient sometimes get direct spam.

To avoid these issues and to ensure that all IETF mail lists are 
administered with a consistent policy, the IESG is considering moving 
all IETF mail lists to ietf.org.

Please let us know what you think about this idea.

On behalf of the IESG,
Russ Housley

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:34:27 -0500

Russ -

I'm ok with asking everyone to move working group lists to @ietf.org.  
Similarly, I'm ok with asking any other IETF related lists move to  
@ietf.org list servers. (I assume you were asking about all lists and  
not just working group lists).

I would prefer that things be such that people would just choose to do  
this naturally instead of because of a policy - if the services are  
running well, we will all want to use them.

I would not like to see a policy or mandate that any IETF related list  
MUST be served by an @ietf.org maillist. We should continue to specify  
the requirements on the lists, not the implementation. Making using an  
@ietf.org list a hard requirement feels like inviting future trouble  
to me.

If we need to provide motivation for people to use @ietf.org lists  
beyond having good service there, I would be ok with a "SHOULD use"- 
like statement and would even be ok asking anyone who chose to not  
follow that SHOULD to provide (and maintain) an artifact indicating why.

FWIW - Anytime I've been in a position to decide to use an @ietf.org  
server for an IETF related list, or host the list somewhere else, I've  
chosen to use the @ietf.org service.

RjS

On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:10 PM, Russ Housley wrote:

> Dear WG Chairs:
>
> The transition from NSS to AMS for IETF Secretariat services has  
> shed light on many topics.  The light is not a result of things  
> being done improperly by one vendor or the other.  Rather, it is due  
> to the increased attention associated with the transition.  One of  
> the things that concerns me as IETF Chair is archives of IETF mail  
> lists.  The transition has clearly highlighted that we do not  
> archive non-ietf.org mail lists as consistently as ietf.org mail  
> lists.
>
> administered with a consistent policy, the IESG is considering  
> moving all IETF mail lists to ietf.org.
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:45:18 -0400

Robert:

I agree that we want to remain very open about the policies.  They 
need to be available to all, not buried in the implementation.

How do we solve the archive problem for non-ietf.org mail lists?

Russ

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:54:42 -0700

> How do we solve the archive problem for non-ietf.org mail lists?

And backups of those archives (which may, or may not, be done by
a non-ietf.org host).

I support moving all working group mailing lists to @ietf.org servers.

An issue we have had in the past, however, is that it can take *weeks* to set
up a new mailing list such as for a proposed BoF.  Can there be some service
level assurance that such a request will be handled within some shorter time
period (2-3 days after AD approval of the new list seems reasonable).
Otherwise, we should continue to expect that new BoFs, proposed BoFs, and
other interested parties will continue to establish mailing lists on
non-ietf.org servers.

-d

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:09:29 -0400

> To avoid these issues and to ensure that all IETF mail lists are administered
> with a consistent policy, the IESG is considering moving all IETF mail lists to
> ietf.org.
>

As chair of a working group that does NOT use an ietf.org list and is happy with 
what it's using... I *do* support this idea.  The DKIM list is where it is 
because of history (there was pre-IETF work, and we just set up the WG list on 
the same server we'd been using for that), not for any other reason.

It'd be disruptive to move things now, and I wouldn't like to do that... though 
if consensus were to do so, I wouldn't object strongly (only mildly).  But I 
think we should encourage, and perhaps even require, that any WG lists newly 
created be created on ietf.org.

Barry

--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair  ([email-masked])

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:17:59 -0400

-- On Thursday, June 05, 2008 1:54 PM -0700 Dan Wing 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding RE: Proposal to move all IETF 
Mail Lists to ietf.org --

> I support moving all working group mailing lists to @ietf.org

+1

> An issue we have had in the past, however, is that it can take
> *weeks* to set up a new mailing list such as for a proposed BoF.

In my experience with the AMS staff, mailing lists are created and 
operational within 24-48 business hours, especially if you use the 
mailing list request tool.  The process is quite streamlined. 
There have been a few exceptions, but they were just that, 
exceptions.

Note that the time estimate is the time from notification to AMS to 
AMS completing the task.  There can be delay while the mailing list 
is approved by the Area Director, which is not included in the 
24-48 hours estimate.  AMS doesn't even see that process; the 
mailing list request tool manages that itself.

However, if we decide to move all lists we'll probably need to 
allow AMS to organize the process a bit and move lists in some 
structured fashion.

Note that moving the list is not particularly difficult, per se, it 
is moving the archive that is potentially time consuming.  It 
depends on its current format and how close it is to the format 
needed to be integrated with the IETF server.  We may want to 
consider moving the lists of subscribers rapidly and then 
backfilling archives over a period of time.  And by backfilling I 
mean copy them all immediately but work the format and integration 
issue over time.

Jim

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:20:27 -0500

Aren't archives already required to exist @ietf even if the lists  
aren't? (its the problems with specifically those backups that Russ is  
pointing to below).

I have _no_ problem that lists be strongly required to have an  
_archive_ at an @ietf.org server.

So to answer Russ -

Having a list fail to archive @ietf.org would be a reason to ask that  
specific list to change its behavior - perhaps best by moving to being  
completely hosted at ietf.org.
(Looking at the other side of the coin - if a list is hosted somewhere  
else, and is being perfectly archived @ietf, what's the advantage of  
moving it?)

Addressing the direct-spam problem is hard, and the first set of  
mechanisms to protect against it that occur to me have an  
administrative component that's a pain to maintain (I understand  
wanting to get out of this game), but the mechanisms do exist and will  
work as long as they are maintained.

But to help make sure my point isn't misunderstood:

I do think everyone should move their working group lists to @ietf.org  
servers - and we should _ask_ everyone to do that and make it easy for  
them to do so.
I don't think we should box ourselves into _requiring_ all lists be  
hosted here.

RjS

On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Dan Wing wrote:

> *weeks* to set

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:30:38 -0400

-- On Thursday, June 05, 2008 4:20 PM -0500 Robert Sparks 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: Proposal to move all 
IETF Mail Lists to ietf.org --

> aren't? (its the problems with specifically those backups that
> Russ is pointing to below).

In fact, you're required today to keep an archive at IETF.ORG.  See 
RFC2418 Section 2.2.  Yes, it's buried in the Charter description.

The issue is enforcing this.  Because of the vagaries of email the 
archive subscription at third-party sites drops off the list 
sometimes.  Sometimes people together to do things and start a 
private list and later that becomes public and later still the 
working group inherits it and finally there's no effective process 
for managing the archive subscriber on these third party lists.

Jim

---

From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:02:47 -0600

I welcome and support the proposal. CAPWAP WG (which I co-chair) is one
that has 'outsourced' the mailing list maintenance as have many other
WGs.

I have been fairly happy with the way the mailing list,
spam-mitigation/filtering have been handled; until it came to a point
when we had to deal with non-WG members from IETF (IESG and other WGs)
had to interact with this group and we had to moderate (without an
official IETF whitelist to benefit from - it was impractical get the
hosts to handle that). In doing so - we had to end up moderating and
also field spam emails (the frequency was not bad either - though
painful).

So - for that and other reasons of consistency with the rest of the IETF
mail-handling - I support this idea.

Regards,
-mani
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 1:10 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Proposal to move all IETF Mail Lists to ietf.org

Dear WG Chairs:

The archive for non-ietf.org mail lists happens my enrolling a mail 
list member to collect the messages for archival on the IETF web 
site.  All kinds of things go wrong, and these members get dropped 
from the mail list.  Also, the archive recipient sometimes get direct
spam.

On behalf of the IESG,
Russ Housley

---

From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:10:02 -0600

I agree - for any newly created WG lists this can be a MUST. For others,
it would best be at the most SHOULD (move).

I am not sure of necessity to move lists of WG's that may be about to
conclude - though it may be beneficial to some longstanding WGs which
still have a lengthy charter ahead.

-mani
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 2:09 PM
To: Russ Housley; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proposal to move all IETF Mail Lists to ietf.org

> To avoid these issues and to ensure that all IETF mail lists are
administered
> Please let us know what you think about this idea.

As chair of a working group that does NOT use an ietf.org list and is
happy with 
what it's using... I *do* support this idea.  The DKIM list is where it
is 
because of history (there was pre-IETF work, and we just set up the WG
list on 
the same server we'd been using for that), not for any other reason.

It'd be disruptive to move things now, and I wouldn't like to do that...
though 
if consensus were to do so, I wouldn't object strongly (only mildly).
But I 
think we should encourage, and perhaps even require, that any WG lists
newly 
created be created on ietf.org.

Barry

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:49:28 -0700

> I don't think we should box ourselves into _requiring_ all lists be  

Ok, I will ask:  why not?

-d

---

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:57:49 -0600

Russ Housley wrote
[snip]
> Please let us know what you think about this idea.

I personally think this is an excellent idea.
Jean-Francois.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:37:35 -0700

On Jun 5, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

> As chair of a working group that does NOT use an ietf.org list and  
> is happy with what it's using...

I am also such a chair. I'll note that [email-masked] has had  
none of the problems that lists @ietf.org have had, and has both a  
functional archive and a functional backup.

I am not opposed to moving them. That said, since this is not a  
solution addressing a problem I have, it is also a solution I have no  
motivation to put in place.

I would appreciate it if the secretariat could move all ops.ietf.org  
lists to ietf.org, their archives, etc, and notify the ops.ietf.org  
list of the change. They could replace the list of participants on  
ops.ietf.org with pointers to the @ietf.org list, making the  
transition painless for those who forget. They could obsolete the old  
list a month or two later.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:28:23 -0700

I second Fred on this.  I'm chair of a WG using [email-masked] and 
have not had much to complain about.  We are using not only
the mailing list, but also the web archives, so both would need to be moved
to avoid disrupting WG operations. 

> From: [email-masked]
> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:37:35 -0700
> To: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]
> 
>

---

From: "David Frascone" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:44:53 -0400

I host capwap.org and the eap mailing lists.  And, for all of the reasons
above, I'd be happy to help migrate them.
-Dave

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>  I second Fred on this.  I'm chair of a WG using [email-masked]

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:45:05 +0900

I am (co-)chairing the LTRU WG, which takes advantage of the services
offered by the IETF. I'm also participating in a few other WGs, most
of them hosting their mailing lists by the IETF. Overall, I'm okay
with the hosting (but see below).

Hovewer, I'm also participating in the HTTP bis WG. The mailing list
is not hosted by IETF, but by W3C. The archives also are kept by W3C.
There is no pointer to archives hosted by the IETF in the charter at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/httpbis-charter.html.

I'm completely fine with that mailing list being hosted at the W3C,
because it has been that way since at least 2002, and the archive
includes mail dating back to September 1994. This spans several
generations of HTTP WGs. Moving the archive may result in many
of the internal references being broken. It may also result in
having to search in two or more locations for some previous
discussion. This is often important when pre-WG activity almost
seamlessly changes over to WG activity, or when there are time
periods with and without a WG.

In addition, while I'm not completely happy with the W3C archiving
system (threads don't link go across months or 2/3 month intervals),
in particular the fact that there are per-time-period overview
pages is a very big help. On the IETF archive pages, there are
no overview pages, so this means that I might have to click
a few hundred times to find a mail that is a year or so back.
In addition, the "Prev Page" (goes to later mail) and "Next Page"
(goes to previous, earlier mail), links are just plain mislabels
that get me confused every time I have to look at them.

Another WG that has a better archive with a reasonable overview
page is IDNA-update (http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/).
Again, having to exchange that overview page with the current
IETF archive system would be a pain.

So I think it is important to keep the possibility to be hosted
elsewhere than at IETF.

Regards,    Martin.

>> list a month or two later.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:44:42 +0200

Russ,

I support your proposal and in fact thing it is long overdue.  As 
someone who has looked for archives for certain groups and been unable 
to find them, I agree that archiving is a problem.  And while hosts of 
various lists are generous to offer their resources, sometimes things 
change.  And so I have no problem with the move as the co-chair of 
group.  I also think it offers us other benefits, such as reduced noise, 
*potential* for reduced duplicate messages, and a easier search capability.

Eliot

Russ Housley wrote:
> increased attention associated with the transition.  One of the things 
> that concerns me as IETF Chair is archives of IETF mail lists.  The 
> transition has clearly highlighted that we do not archive non-ietf.org 
> mail lists as consistently as ietf.org mail lists.
>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:31:12 +0100

+1

Stewart

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:37:12 +0200

>> I personally think this is an excellent idea.

I agree as well, let's just do this and not spend too much time discussing
it back and forth.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is one of the choices leaving the office open?
                                       Alan Greenspan on the next elections

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:57:57 +0100

> Please let us know what you think about this idea.

As a chair of a WG that doesn't use an ietf.org mailing list, which 
works just fine and has a good archive on imc.org, I don't see a reason 
why this should be forced on everyone.
IMHO, this proposal can only become interesting if secretariat can 
provide better facilities for searching archives.

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 07:09:08 -0400

It's probably worth also noting that the W3C (generally) has different 
policies (than the IETF or ietf.org) with respect to posting to mailing 
lists (agreement you need to make in order to get whitelisted, as I 
recall).

The important point here is to ensure that IETF WG mailing list policies 
can be supported wherever the mailing list is hosted.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 08:41:30 -0400

+1

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 5:31 AM
> To: Jean-Francois Mule
> Cc: [email-masked]; Russ Housley

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:44:19 -0400

>functional archive and a functional backup.

I second this, ops.ietf.org has been great.

>motivation to put in place.

I'm opposed to move it to ietf.org, the reason is in the archives
of this mailing list :-( We do not want all our eggs in one basket.

My list has official archives at ops.ietf.org and that has worked
great.
We have been sending archive messages to the <wg>-archive at lists.ietf.org
since 2002, the archive does exist but I can only access it via ftp 
on ftp.ietf.org not via any ietf.org web site.

I also keep a private archive of the mailing list and I know there
are 2 or 3 others who do the same.

My main concern is what will happen if/when IETF goes bankrupt what happens
to the archives then. Yes I know my current operator also has a
risk of going out of business.

         Olafur

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:58:10 +0200

I support the proposal too. 

--julien

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Muenich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:11:07 +0200

> Please let us know what you think about this idea.

I support "moving all IETF mail lists to ietf.org" fully.

We should enable one type of administration, a consistent 
mail policy and archiving. In case of spam or any other 
issues this enables a common way of issue solving and 
tool extensions as necessary.

Cheers, 
Mehmet
 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext David Harrington
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 2:42 PM
> To: [email-masked]; 'Jean-Francois Mule'
> Cc: [email-masked]; 'Russ Housley'
> Subject: RE: Proposal to move all IETF Mail Lists to ietf.org
> 
> +1
> 
> David Harrington
> [email-masked]
> [email-masked]
> [email-masked]
> 
>

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 08:11:58 -0400

makes sense to me.

marc.

> Please let us know what you think about this idea.

-----
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006, http://www.ipv6book.ca

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:05:12 -0500

Because the probability of unintended consequences is, by my guess  
(and its nothing but guess), quite high.

Let me turn the question and ask why you don't think strong  
encouragement rather than an absolute requirement is enough?

RjS

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:28:40 -0400

Hi,

I think having all IETF lists administered by one official
administration makes sense because then we can ensure consistent fair
and open policies in the administration of IETF mailing lists. If we
had consistent archives, we also might be better able to add features
across all mailing lists.  Adding consistent new features is much
harder when the IETF lists are controlled by different administrators.

The archives could also be used for documenting/protecting IETF
intellectual property contributions better; when I contribute an idea
on a mailing list, I would like to know that that "contribution to the
IETF" is recorded consistently, in case I ever need to challenge some
patent troll in the future. I want to have a **standard** location to
retrieve the archives.

I have been doing IETF work 16 years, and some of the mailing lists
that were maintained by others are no longer available. Occasionally,
there are things I would like to be able to research in the archives,
but cannot. I would be much happier knowing we had a consistent
archive policy for our lists.

People who keep archives that offer better search capabilities, or
like to have a separate location for reliability reasons, or whatever,
certainly can maintain their own copy of the archive. But I think we
should have all official WG archives at ietf.org.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 10:05 AM
> To: Dan Wing

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:47:04 -0400

+1 This is a perfectly rational idea for which I completely support.

This could be extended to proposed BOF lists as well.

The value of a consistent historical archive outweighs other considerations.

>  Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 4:10 PM
>  To: [email-masked]

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Muenich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 17:33:23 +0200

> I would like to know that that "contribution to the IETF" is 
> recorded consistently, in case I ever need to challenge some
> patent troll in the future.

The above argument makes it a necessity. IETF has 
to ensure the retrieval of patent relevant mails.

Cheers, 
Mehmet

> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 4:29 PM
> To: 'Robert Sparks'; 'Dan Wing'

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:05:58 -0700

> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 7:05 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Russ Housley'; [email-masked]

By my experience moving a list to ietf.org is easy.  I did it two 
years ago with BEHAVE (it used to be on sipfoundry.org and is now 
on ietf.org).

> encouragement rather than an absolute requirement is enough?

Because we can't require backups of archives to be maintained;
we wouldn't have anyone able to double-check that archives are
set up correctly; depending on how it is set up we might not have
text-only access to archives (yeah, some folks know how to do 
that); we have inconsistent interfaces to subscribe/unsubscribe
(some folks seem to avoid Mailman for whatever reason).

All of this puts intellectual property at risk (as mentioned by
others in this thread); wastes the time of participants ("where
is/was working group such-and-such hosted?  I'll try searching
on Google to figure out.  Ah, yes, that group was hosted on
imc.org, I'll check their archives"); and confuses people 
unfamiliar with the IETF into wondering if a list is IETF
sanctioned or just a bunch of individual contributors that set
up their own mailing list.

-d

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 12:54:19 -0500

> years ago with BEHAVE (it used to be on sipfoundry.org and is now

I'm puzzled by this response - it seems to be a non-sequitur to my  
point, which makes me think you're not seeing it yet.

Remember that I think people _should_ use @ietf.org and I don't see  
anything hard (though as others have pointed out there can be  
inconvenience) at making a transition for an existing list.

Think further down the road though, when, for example, we bring work  
in from or along with some other organization (see the recent post  
about a list housed at W3C) - there could well be situations where it  
makes _sense_ for the list to be homed somewhere else and putting  
ourselves in a position where that's a direct violation of policy that  
has to be excepted/managed is asking for pain that we can avoid.

> Because we can't require backups of archives to be maintained;

You are conflating the location and maintenance of the archive with  
location and maintenance of the list.

I have already said that I think an ->archive<- for all lists must be  
at @ietf.org. I'll refine that now to note I mean "the authoritative  
archive" in case that wasn't obvious.

> others in this thread);

See above

> wastes the time of participants ("where
This looks like you're talking about branding, which may be a good  
thing and another reason to strongly encourage lists to be @ietf.org  
hosted.

Do you see yet the point I'm trying to make about the potential  
downside of making it an absolute policy requirement? If not, unless  
I'm confusing a lot of people, maybe we should take it offline for a  
bit?

RjS

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:15:10 -0700

> downside of making it an absolute policy requirement? 

No, I don't; I am fine with the policy saying SHOULD, but it all
comes down to how SHOULD gets interpreted -- isn't that always the
quagmire IETF gets stuck in?

For example, if the list owner says "I don't have time to move the 
list", is that enough to keep the list off of IETF's servers?  If 
the list owner says "it's an ITU/W3C mailing list with a decade 
of archives, IETF shouldn't have it", is that enough to keep it 
off IETF's server (I agree that should be enough to keep it 
off IETF's server).

> If not, unless I'm confusing a lot of people, maybe we should 
> take it offline for a  bit?

-d

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:49:16 -0400

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dan Wing
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 2:15 PM
> To: 'Robert Sparks'
> If 

Does such a list meet the IETF WG policy requirements for fair and
open participarion? Does getting access to such a list require being a
member of the other organization? paying for membership? Are
contributions to the mailing list subject to the IETF "Note Well"
requirements?

If a mailing list is the official WG mailing list, then I think it
should be subject to IETF policies, and I question whether an ITU/W3C
list would meet all the IETF policies. That argues that the mailing
list **for the WG** should be sponsored on and maintained by ietf.org
rather than by another organization. 

The charter can certainly point to another mailing list as a
supplement, but if I were chairing such a WG, I would want to see
consensus established on the IETF official mailing list using IETF
policies for fair and open participation, and not some other
organization's mailing list.

I think this is a great example of why it should be a MUST, not a
SHOULD.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:18:34 -0500

Before Robert and Dan go off into the closet to talk, I'd like to support 
pretty much everything that others have said about the advantages of this 
move...

... I've had a working group mailing list hosted off-ietf.org, and it went 
through the usual "gratuitous domain name changes" agony once or twice ...

... and I've had very few unpleasant memories from mailing lists on ietf.org 
...

... but I wonder about what Robert said here.

> Because the probability of unintended consequences is, by my guess  (and 
> its nothing but guess), quite high.
>
> Let me turn the question and ask why you don't think strong  encouragement 
> rather than an absolute requirement is enough?

By definition, unintended consequences aren't obvious, because you don't see 
them until after you trip over them later. So this probably isn't the 
biggest possible unintended consequence, but here's my candidate question...

So, for all the people who are hoping to use ietf.org to foil patent trolls, 
I'm assuming you'd want all BOF mailing lists there, too, because that's 
where so many early discussions are, right? But that wasn't mentioned in 
Russ's note.

("but why would you require WGs to be at ietf.org but not BOFs, if you 
require them to move the mailing list when the BOF becomes a working 
group?")

As of today, mailing lists hosted at ietf.org have no special status. You 
need an area director's approval to create a mailing list hosted at 
ietf.org, but since there's nothing special about those lists, it's hard to 
imagine why an AD would say "no".

And you'll note from looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/list/nonwg/ 
that the bar is pretty low ("www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-sailors"). 
So, no problem so far.

Fast-forward to MUST, and then you suggest a BoF that the AD thinks is 
insane, and request a mailing list. The AD could be a sport ("good to have 
all the crazy people on one mailing list, and IPR might close SOME DAY, so 
I'll approve this one"), but if the combination of

- MUST be at ietf.org,

- list requests are approved by an AD, and

- an AD who doesn't want to encourage crazy people

gives an AD a new tool to push back on BoFs ... well, I'm not saying it's 
wrong, I'm saying it probably wasn't intended, since Russ didn't refer to 
BOFs at all in his note.

We don't change procedures often or quickly. If we said SHOULD and then 
revisited when we see who actually chooses to move onto the island, we could 
do that easily and quickly enough...

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 02:23:40 -0500

On Jun 5, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>
> Having a list fail to archive @ietf.org would be a reason to ask  
> that specific list to change its behavior - perhaps best by moving  
> to being completely hosted at ietf.org.
> (Looking at the other side of the coin - if a list is hosted  
> somewhere else, and is being perfectly archived @ietf, what's the  
> advantage of moving it?)

Reduces the liability when IETF gets sued or subpoenaed and can't  
produce the archive that is supposedly required by IETF policy.

I'd say that any list that isn't being archived at IETF simply isn't  
an IETF list -- as a volunteer org, we can write notes on paper  
airplanes and throw them at each other. But I'd say that WG and other  
IETF-sponsored lists MUST be archived at IETF. The easiest way to do  
that is keep the list at IETF, but I'm sure there are other ways to do  
it , such as creating a "shadow" IETF list with no subscribers and  
having that list subscribed to the non-IETF list.

However, I have seen cases recently where people need to establish  
whether a particular John Doe was or was not subscribed to a given  
IETF list on a given date (sometimes several years ago). This is more  
than the information that a subscribed-list archive (as above) would  
have, and it's the kind of thing IETF might be subpoenaed for. That  
argues that all IETF-recognized lists MUST be run by IETF.

--
Dea

---

From: "David B. Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 07:33:23 -0400

Dean Willis writes...

> IETF list on a given date (sometimes several years ago).

The "What did you know, and when did you know it?" line of inquiry?

> This is more than the information that a subscribed-list archive
> (as above) would have...

Do the current lists at ieft.org archive all of the add and remove request
messages, in addition of the content messages?

... and it's the kind of thing IETF might be subpoenaed for.

Has that sort of thing ever happened to the IETF?  You can't produce records
you don't maintain.  Unless you can quote some statutory requirement that
the IETF keep such records, it would be at our discretion.

Overall, this suggestion sounds reasonable in terms of neat organizational
housekeeping.  My question is who does the work to seamlessly migrate
well-functioning existing lists to the ietf.org servers?

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 01:51:46 -0500

> The "What did you know, and when did you know it?" line of inquiry?

And the "Did you have a duty to disclose the IPR held by your company  
that affected the standard being discussed on the mailing list that  
you were subscribed to?" line of inquiry.

> messages, in addition of the content messages?

hard to say. I've asked at times if such information was available,  
and have received a variety of responses. So far, I've been able to  
find "participatory examples" when needed, so those message archives  
are very, very important!

> the IETF keep such records, it would be at our discretion.

Well, we might not be able to produce records, but we might have to  
spend some effort convincing the judge that we can't produce those  
records.  This is easier if we have 1) a published policy on what is  
maintained, and 2) actually comply with that policy. My opinion is  
that it's generally to the IETF's benefit to have these records, but  
I'm sure that's not a universal truth.

> well-functioning existing lists to the ietf.org servers?

As a WG chair, I've migrated several non-IETF  lists to IETF in a  
fairly straightforward way:

1) Get the new list provisioned -- we have a process for this, and it  
works pretty well.
2) Warn the old list about cutover and freeze its membership
3) Add the subscribers from the old list to the new list (admin  
interface can do this)
4) Subscribe the new list to the old list
5) On cutover date, add an autoresponder to the old list to remind  
people who post to the wrong one
6) Change the list pointers on various web sites.
7) Wait a while, then kill off the old list.

I believe we were even successful in getting some of the old mail  
archives moved over for some of the lists, which is a nice touch.

 From time to time, I've migrated a list without automatically moving  
the subscribers. This is a very lazy way to purge stale entries that  
don't happen to bounce, which happens more often than we probably think.

--
Dean

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:58:29 -0400

--On Friday, June 06, 2008 11:57:57 AM +0100 Alexey Melnikov 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> As a chair of a WG that doesn't use an ietf.org mailing list, which works
> just fine and has a good archive on imc.org, I don't see a reason why
> this should be forced on everyone.

I have to agree with Alexey here.  krb-wg has a perfectly good mailing list 
with perfectly good archives, and I have more important things to do with 
the limited time I have available for IETF work than to migrate a mailing 
list.  If ANL asks me to move the list, I will; until then, I have no 
interest spending time solving problems I don't have.

-- Jeff

---

From: Alexa Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:25:24 -0700

In terms of how long it takes to have a mailing list operational, we at AMS
are comfortable committing to a 2 business day turnaround. However, that
2-day commitment does not take into consideration any delay that results
from a delay in Area Director approval because, as Jim noted below, we are
not involved in that part of the process.

Alexa

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:29:58 -0700

2-3 days after AD approval is quite reasonable (as I mentioned in my first
post on this subject).

Thanks,
-d

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexa Morris
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:25 PM
> To: James M Galvin; Dan Wing; Russ Housley; 'Robert Sparks'
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:59:00 -0500

At 03:18 PM 6/6/2008, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>Fast-forward to MUST, and then you suggest a BoF that the AD thinks 
>is insane, and request a mailing list. The AD could be a sport 
>("good to have all the crazy people on one mailing list, and IPR 
>might close SOME DAY, so I'll approve this one"), but if the combination of
>
>- MUST be at ietf.org,
>
>gives an AD a new tool to push back on BoFs ... well, I'm not saying 
>it's wrong, I'm saying it probably wasn't intended, since Russ 
>didn't refer to BOFs at all in his note.
>
>We don't change procedures often or quickly. If we said SHOULD and 
>then revisited when we see who actually chooses to move onto the 
>island, we could do that easily and quickly enough...

I didn't read in this long thread an answer to Dan's original 
question about whether or not a BoF (new) mail list request can be 
reduced from weeks (like it has been in the past) to days?

IMO, this is an important expectation to be made clear to everyone.

It doesn't take more than days to set up a list, and if we chairs 
believe archiving all of an eventual WG's messages is a good idea, 
this 'new mail list request' needs to be in the 2-3 days timeframe; 
else BoFs will continue to be on another server until it is not, with 
or without archiving from that other server to ietf.org.

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:21:49 -0500

At 12:59 PM 6/10/2008, James M. Polk wrote:
>else BoFs will continue to be on another server until it is not, 
>with or without archiving from that other server to ietf.org.

apparently this was just answered (i.e., crossing messages)

sorry

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:09:59 +0900

At 02:59 08/06/11, James M. Polk wrote:

>I didn't read in this long thread an answer to Dan's original question about whether or not a BoF (new) mail list request can be reduced from weeks (like it has been in the past) to days?
>
>It doesn't take more than days to set up a list, and if we chairs believe archiving all of an eventual WG's messages is a good idea, this 'new mail list request' needs to be in the 2-3 days timeframe; else BoFs will continue to be on another server until it is not, with or without archiving from that other server to ietf.org.

I think we have seen some info that for me indicates that 2-3 days might
be possible. But this in effect doesn't give the responsible AD more than
0-1 days. I don't know any AD who would make a decision for a BOF in such
a short time. So this could only be "yes, you can have a mailing list,
but I'll have to think about whether you'll have a BOF or not". Somewhat
awkward, but it might work in some cases.

Another case is that of a few people getting together and setting up
a mailing list to discuss some issues, and after a while, finding out
that they have some real work to do, and that work shold be done in
the IETF, and they might need a BOF.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:10:24 -0500

unintended consequences...

> awkward, but it might work in some cases.

although it may seem awkward (it probably IS awkward), ADs have been doing 
exactly what you are describing  - approving mailing lists and then thinking 
about BOF requests - for a while now, because they want to see if there is a 
community that will support a BOF request before they approve it, and one of 
the easiest ways for them to do that is to approve a mailing list and see if 
anyone shows up to subscribe, send e-mail, have intelligent discussions...

>From http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt:

   3) Create a public mailing list and post a "call for participation"
      for the proposed BOF agenda on various mailing lists (e.g., the
      ietf list). The call for participation advertises that a
      "community of interest" is being formed to gauge whether there is
      sufficient interest to host a BOF. The goal is to draw in other
      interested potential participants, to allow them to help shape the
      BOF (e.g., by giving them time to write a draft, ask for agenda
      time, help scope the work of the proposed work, argue that a BOF
      is (or is not) needed, etc.)

so as I said in 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wgchairs/current/msg06180.html, I would 
not support "working group mailing lists MUST be at ietf.org" without 
someone saying something about BOF mailing lists, and I would have concerns 
about "BOF mailing lists MUST be at ietf.org" for the reasons I gave in that 
post.

Using Martin's terminology - I would not support ADs refusing to approve 
pre-BOF mailing lists at ietf.org until after they make decisions about 
approving the corresponding BOF request, because that feels like a return to 
the Bad Old Days where no one really knows how to get new work chartered in 
the IETF...

(As an aside - 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt is 
the best guidance we can point people to on BOF planning, but it's in 
"waiting for AD go-ahead" after finishing last call in January 2008, and has 
never been balloted, so I'm handwaving that this draft reflects the way the 
IESG does things, and it's perfectly understandable that people wouldn't be 
paying attention to what the draft says)

> the IETF, and they might need a BOF.

To the best of my ability to read the tea leaves of current BOF guidance, 
this case is what ADs hope would happen normally.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:19:18 +0200

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> although it may seem awkward (it probably IS awkward), ADs have been 
> doing exactly what you are describing  - approving mailing lists and 
> then thinking about BOF requests - for a while now, because they want 
> to see if there is a community that will support a BOF request before 
> they approve it, and one of the easiest ways for them to do that is to 
> approve a mailing list and see if anyone shows up to subscribe, send 
> e-mail, have intelligent discussions...

Right. My bar for approving a list request is extremely low. Basically, 
the only thing that I wouldn't approve a request for is something for 
which a list already clearly exists. But the topic itself wouldn't have 
to make sense at that stage -- the list would be the place to work out 
if the ideas makes sense, can be adjusted to make sense, etc.

Jari

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:22:01 +0200

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3:19 PM
> To: Spencer Dawkins
> Cc: [email-masked]
> >> I think we have seen some info that for me indicates that 2-3 days 
> >> might be possible. But this in effect doesn't give the 
> responsible AD 
> >> more than
> >> 0-1 days. I don't know any AD who would make a decision 
> for a BOF in 
> >> such a short time. So this could only be "yes, you can 
> have a mailing 
> >> list, but I'll have to think about whether you'll have a 
> BOF or not". 
> >> Somewhat awkward, but it might work in some cases.
> >
> Right. My bar for approving a list request is extremely low. 
> Basically, the only thing that I wouldn't approve a request 
> for is something for which a list already clearly exists. But 
> the topic itself wouldn't have to make sense at that stage -- 
> the list would be the place to work out if the ideas makes 
> sense, can be adjusted to make sense, etc.
> 
> Jari
> 

Guilty as charged - I am following a similar policy as Jari. 

Dan

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:28:29 +1000

My .02 -

As Martin pointed out, HTTPBIS is hosted at W3C. Besides being happy  
with the archives themselves and the level of support we see from  
their ops folks, I'm concerned about splitting the HTTP archives  
again; the list has moved before, and I don't relish rebuilding while  
we're still in the air.

If the requirement would be that *new* efforts -- WGs, BoFs and  
perhaps even WG recharterings -- be hosted on ietf.org (with the  
option for existing groups to move if they desire it), I would be much  
happier with this proposal.

As an aside, one of the features at W3C that I use every day is the  
Archived-At header; it would be helpful if this were supported on all  
IETF lists.

Cheers,

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:23:45 -0400

> As an aside, one of the features at W3C that I use every day is the Archived-At
> header; it would be helpful if this were supported on all IETF lists.

Hmmmm...
Is that related to the (standard) List-Archive header?

Barry

--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair  ([email-masked])
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:54:19 +0200

>From looking at this thread, it appears that the MUST is that long term
publically accessible archiving is guaranteed for any discussions to
which RFC 3978 (updated by RFC 4748) and RFC 3979(updated by RFC 4879)
apply.

This obviously applies to all WG lists, BOF lists, and formal design
team lists.

Informal design teams and other interest groups would therefore be a
MAY, and the application of IPR rules would need to be dealt with when
the work is then brought into IETF.

The easiest way to meet this is to host a list at ietf.org. I guess it
would be possible to meet the requirements at other hosts, but
presumably we would need to ensure that the appropriate guarantees
exist.

Regards

Keith

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:28 PM
> To: Russ Housley
> Cc: [email-masked]
> As Martin pointed out, HTTPBIS is hosted at W3C. Besides 
> being happy with the archives themselves and the level of 
> support we see from their ops folks, I'm concerned about 
> splitting the HTTP archives again; the list has moved before, 
> and I don't relish rebuilding while we're still in the air.
> 
> If the requirement would be that *new* efforts -- WGs, BoFs 
> and perhaps even WG recharterings -- be hosted on ietf.org 
> (with the option for existing groups to move if they desire 
> it), I would be much happier with this proposal.
> 
> As an aside, one of the features at W3C that I use every day 
> is the Archived-At header; it would be helpful if this were 
> supported on all IETF lists.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> > list member to collect the messages for archival on the 
> IETF web site.  
> > All kinds of things go wrong, and these members get dropped 
> from the 
> > mail list.  Also, the archive recipient sometimes get direct spam.
> >

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:12:57 -0400

The document is waiting for Thomas to make some pretty minor 
updates.  The plan it to publish it as an RFC when Thomas finds the 
cycles to make the changes.

Russ

At 06:10 AM 6/11/2008, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>(As an aside - 
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt 
>is the best guidance we can point people to on BOF planning, but 
>it's in "waiting for AD go-ahead" after finishing last call in 
>January 2008, and has never been balloted, so I'm handwaving that 
>this draft reflects the way the IESG does things, and it's perfectly 
>understandable that people wouldn't be paying attention to what the draft says)

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:01:27 -0400

Several WG Chairs have spoken in favor of moving their mail 
lists.  I'd like to pick a few to move, which will help everyone see 
the level of pain that is needed to make such a migration.  Volunteers?

Russ

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:31:19 -0700

Dean Willis wrote:
> that affected the standard being discussed on the mailing list that you 
> were subscribed to?" line of inquiry.

Remind Where in the Note Well or bcp 79 it requires you to disclose IPR 
if you subscribe to a mailing list?

If you do not contribute to a document or participate in the discussion. 
then you do not have a disclosure requirement.

Knowing who is on the mailing list is irrelevant in that context as is 
for example knowing who reads the mailing list by looking in the  archives.

> hard to say. I've asked at times if such information was available, and 
> have received a variety of responses. So far, I've been able to find 
> "participatory examples" when needed, so those message archives are 
> very, very important!
> 
>>
> maintained, and 2) actually comply with that policy. My opinion is that 
> it's generally to the IETF's benefit to have these records, but I'm sure 
> that's not a universal truth.
> 
> As a WG chair, I've migrated several non-IETF  lists to IETF in a fairly 
> straightforward way:
>

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:17:56 -0400

Hi Russ,
   Greg and I would like to volunteer to move the dna working group 
mailing list to the ietf.org servers

Thanks
Suresh

Russ Housley wrote:
> Several WG Chairs have spoken in favor of moving their mail lists.  I'd 
> like to pick a few to move, which will help everyone see the level of 
> pain that is needed to make such a migration.  Volunteers?
> 
> Russ
>

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:03:40 +1000

> pain that is needed to make such a migration.  Volunteers?

shim6

  Geoff

---

From: Alexa Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:54:30 -0700

Now that several WG chairs have volunteered to have their lists moved to
ietf.org, I'd like to explain the process for this move, as we see it.

1. A WG Chair informs me that the WG would like to move its mailing list to
ietf.org
2. The WG Chair announces this to the current WG mailing list as well.
3. The WG Chair sends me the:
    A. List name
    B. List owner email address
    C. List of subscribers - email addresses only - one per line -
        in the body of an email message (not as an attachment)
3. We will create the mailing list and the list owner will be auto-notified.
4. We will add all subscribers, they will all be notified.
5. WG Chair will announces that new list is active.
6. WG Chair will close the old list.
7. WG Chair has the option to forward the old address to new list.

The other -- substantial -- piece of this is moving the archives over. We
have the archives for some of the WG mailing lists because we (as in, the
IETF) were subscribed as an archive member; in these cases, no further
action on the part of a WG chair is needed because we have the archives on
hand.

However, if we do not have the archives yet, then we need to have them
zipped up and sent to us (this will most likely need to be on physical media
like a CD or DVD unless the zipfile is very small). As soon as we receive
the archives, we will analyze them and inject them into the IETF archives.
This process -- the analyzation and injection of archives -- could take a
full day to complete.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about some part of
this process.

Regards,
Alexa

-----------
Alexa Morris / Executive Director / IETF
48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA  94538
Phone: +1.510.492.4089 / Fax: +1.510.492.4001
Email: [email-masked]

Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS)
Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning
www.amsl.com <http://www.amsl.com/>

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:10:34 +0200

> the level of pain that is needed to make such a migration. 

BTNS.

--julien

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:57:02 +0900

>Is that related to the (standard) List-Archive header?

Related, but different. List-Archive is for the whole list.
Archived-At is for single messages.

For some people, it's difficult to believe that having an URI
to an archived version of a message in the message itself could
be of any use, but once you figure out how to use it (namely to
refer to that message in other messages, issue entries,... in a
way that everybody can share), you may not want to miss it.

Anyway, enough said. For further details, please see
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5064.txt.

Regards,    Martin.