Subject: [admin-discuss] Proposed ietf.org email address policy

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 20:52:13 +0300

We are proposing a policy regarding the allocation of individual
administrative email addresses in the ietf.org domain. The proposal
was motivated by a few community members that raised the concern that
continued allocation of individual email addresses under ietf.org
could at some point create collisions for IETF mailing lists.

Historically, the only email addresses created under the ietf.org
domain were for IETF-associated mailing lists, e.g., for working
groups, the IESG, directorates, etc., for aliases for certain roles,
e.g., [email-masked], or for administrative purposes, e.g.,
[email-masked]. This was not the result of following any explicit
allocation policy, it just happened that way.

This expanded slightly a number of years ago, on an ad hoc basis, and
now a few individuals - all of them IETF LLC employees - have work
email addresses under ietf.org.

Therefore, the IESG and LLC Board are considering formalizing a policy
concerning ietf.org email addresses:

* new email addresses for general and administrative roles under
  ietf.org must be chosen to avoid conflicts with potential IETF
  mailing list names

* the IESG must be consulted before any new email addresses under
  ietf.org are created and will have the sole responsibility for
  approving and managing addresses under ietf.org

* new individual email addresses for LLC personnel will be allocated
  under a new staff.ietf.org subdomain, with the LLC being solely
  responsible for the approval and management of those addresses

* existing individual email addresses under ietf.org at the time the
  policy goes into effect will continue to receive email, which will
  be forwarded to new staff.ietf.org subdomain addresses; and
  outbound mail should be preferably be sent from staff.ietf.org
  addresses or role-based ietf.org addresses

We invite the community to send feedback on this proposed policy to
[email-masked] by 24 June 2021.

Lars Eggert
IETF Chair

Jason Livingood
Chair, IETF LLC Board

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 18:01:02 +0000

I like this proposal very much.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 11:16:36 -0700

Thanks for this. Your proposed rule makes sense. I might have one suggestion.

Where you have allocated an email address in IETF.org for an individual, duplicate that with an address in staff.IETF.org.  That will allow you, at some point in the future, to remove the first set of addresses and continue communication with the second. I might suggest that those individuals start using the @staff email addresses so reduce any possible impact when that is done.

JUst a thought.

Sent from my iPad

> On Jun 10, 2021, at 10:53 AM, IETF Chair <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:53:55 -0400

Fred,

I think that is already in the proposal -- see the last bullet
point ("* existing individual email addresses under ietf.org...")

Lars and Jason,

Seems completely sensible to me and is fairly similar to what I
would have proposed if asked (probably just a happy
coincidence).  One tiny suggestion and a question:

* At least for the benefit of those of us with fat fingers, have
you considered a subdomain shorter than "staff".  "llc.ietf.org"
or even "co.ietf.org" or "ad.ietf.org" would seem to have small
advantages if done at the beginning?

* Several people who are not employees of the LLC, particularly
Secretariat Staff working for AMS, already have ietf.org role
accounts.  As I understand the proposal, that does not change.
They are now using AMSL.COM addresses when those role account
are inappropriate (or they don't have role accounts).  I assume
that does not change.  Correct?

Again, seems like a very good proposal and plan.

thanks,
   john

--On Thursday, June 10, 2021 11:16 -0700 Fred Baker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Where you have allocated an email address in IETF.org for an
> individual, duplicate that with an address in staff.IETF.org.
> That will allow you, at some point in the future, to remove
> the first set of addresses and continue communication with the
> second. I might suggest that those individuals start using the
> @staff email addresses so reduce any possible impact when that
> is done.
> 
> JUst a thought.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 18:48:28 -0400

Thank you.  I strongly support this policy.

Russ

> On Jun 10, 2021, at 1:52 PM, IETF Chair <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Jun 2021 21:27:56 -0400

>  responsible for the approval and management of those addresses

I understand the goal here is to make it possible to make [email-masked]
be a mailing list, and [email-masked] an unrelated person.  That is
a terrible idea.  I can assure you that if you do that, bob the mailing
list will get an endless stream of mail intended for bob the person, and
there is no way to stop it.

I happen to have a Gmail address which is my first and last names. It
gets lots and lots of mail intended for people with names similar to
mine who think that my address is their address. Or maybe they know
their address, it's [email-masked] or
[email-masked], but whatever it is, people don't hear the
extra part and I get the mail. I tell them it's wrong, they apologize,
and more often than not the mail continues. (There is a pharmacist in
Paris who has given me a standing invitation to drop by the shop due
to all the wrong mail he and his friends and the French government
have sent me.)

For the same reason, no matter how clearly [email-masked] tells
people his address, they will send mail to [email-masked].  He will tell
them again, they'll say, oh, right, sorry, and they will send more mail
to [email-masked].

There are about 8 billion seven-character strings we can use as list names,
or 50 billion with embedded digits.  When we're setting up a new list or WG,
we already have to check that it doesn't collide with any of the existing
addresses, and I don't understand why a few more addresses for the collision
check is a problem, or that we will be unable to find a suitable address
among the billions of available strings.

But I am quite sure that moving some of the addresses into a subdomain
will create needless pain because you just can't force people to
remember that. So let's not try.

R's,
John

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 22:34:29 -0700

Hi,

> On Jun 10, 2021, at 6:27 PM, John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I agree with John.   Let’s not do the [email-masked] thing.   It won’t work for the reasons he describes.

A lot of conflicts could be avoided by a policy that people based email addresses are the form of <[email-masked]>.  Very unlikely to be conflicts.

Bob

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 20:40:24 -0500

I think this proposal takes things in the right direction. Thanks to 
everyone who worked to craft the policy.

/a