Subject: [RADIR] ram & rrg mailing lists

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:44:53 -0400

Last week, during the routing and addressing directorate meeting, we
breifly discussed the ram and rrg mailing lists. They seem to have a
lot of overlapping threads/topics. The sense of the directorate was
that it was not clear that having two separate mailing lists was
helpful. (And someone - Brian, I believe - independently got up at the
microphone at the rtgarea meeting and more or less raised the same
issue.)

I did a little bit of searching, but didn't come up with a clear
statement for what was in-scope for the RAM list. Plus, it was set up
prior to the RRG reengaging on this topic.

So, I'd suggest that if two lists are needed (which may well be),
there should be a clear statement/charter as to what is in scope for
each list, so that we cut down on replication.

I assume that because the RAM list was setup up jointly by the
iab/iesg, they are on the hook for speaking to the list
charter. Whereas the RRG would do the same for its list.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
RADIR mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:58:06 -0700

> charter. Whereas the RRG would do the same for its list.

Speaking for myself...

RRG would be happy to host any routing architecture discussions.  In  
particular,
we would prefer to be the focus of the ID/locator split discussions,  
as that's what
we're currently working on.

Lixia, do you concur?

Tony

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:08:02 -0400

The RAM list (which is an IAB list), was set up for the purposes
of discussing general architectural issues related to routing
and addressing.  Indeed, it did precede the current instantiation
of the RRG.  As such, it has at least the possibility of
a broader scope.

The point I made at the microphone in response to Brian's remark
was:  the RRG mailing list is, strictly & uniquely, for the
purposes of carrying out RRG work -- as such, it is for the
RRG chairs (not the RADIR, not the IAB, not the IESG) to say
whether they want *all* discussion there, or wish to keep it more
focused.

If that's clarified, I'm sure the IAB would appreciate individual
input on how to scope the RAM list appropriately (perhaps into
non-existence, depending on the position ;-) ).

Leslie.
(Speaking, of course, as an individual, who just happened to
have some involvement in the earlier life of these things).

-- 

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

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:41:07 -0700

On Jul 31, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Tony Li wrote:

> RRG would be happy to host any routing architecture discussions.   
> In particular,
> we would prefer to be the focus of the ID/locator split  
> discussions, as that's what

yes I agree with Tony here.
Furthermore, I believe that we can easily nudge/move specific  
discussions to the desired list through active participation (which I  
have not done much, but plan to catch up:)

Lixia