Subject: Re: [RADIR] Should RADir be closed?

From: Vince Fuller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:42:15 -0800

> I have not seen much activity here in quite some time.  Has the
> directorate outlived its usefulness?

I think the deafening silence may have provided your answer.

	--Vince

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 13:44:42 -0500

> I think the deafening silence may have provided your answer.

Indeed.

I'm willing to do RADIR work if Russ and Olaf have something concrete  
for us to do.  That would probably involve rechartering the group.   
Otherwise, stick a fork in it.

--John

---

From: "Azinger, Marla" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:49:11 -0500

Unless there is another task for this group to take on....it looks done or at least in an inactive state.

Marla 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Vince Fuller
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:42 AM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [RADIR] Should RADir be closed?

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

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:17:39 -0500

> directorate outlived its usefulness?

I think there is agreement we don't have a real purpose at this point
and energy seems to have moved elswhere.

But, I think the problem statement document we put together is pretty
good and I think it should get published as an info RFC. The last
version was in pretty good shape (IMO), but hadn't really gotten much
feedback either way, so others may think otherwise. (The main change
in the last revision was to take out more of the "business judgement"
as being out-of-scope.)

Not sure how best to publish it. We can go the independent submission
route, but I think it would better for all if this were IETF approved,
implying it had gotten IETF review and folk were generally supportive
(and more importantly, there was no serious objecting/disagreement
with the content). I have doubts about going further and trying and
get IETF "consensus" and make it a BCP or something stronger, as the
community is likely fundamentally divided on the question of "how
serious" the problem is. I suspect that no one really has the desire
or energy to have that debate yet again.

I do think the document should say that it was put together by the
directorate, listing the members and so forth, but without trying to
claim that because it was done by a directorate, it has some sort of
special cachet or extra weight.  But at the same time, I don't think
we should lose the history of how the document was developed.

Thoughts?

Thomas

---

From: "Azinger, Marla" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:05:40 -0500

I agree with what you said here.

Marla 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:18 AM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [RADIR] Should RADir be closed?

> directorate outlived its usefulness?

I think there is agreement we don't have a real purpose at this point and energy seems to have moved elswhere.

But, I think the problem statement document we put together is pretty good and I think it should get published as an info RFC. The last version was in pretty good shape (IMO), but hadn't really gotten much feedback either way, so others may think otherwise. (The main change in the last revision was to take out more of the "business judgement"
as being out-of-scope.)

Not sure how best to publish it. We can go the independent submission route, but I think it would better for all if this were IETF approved, implying it had gotten IETF review and folk were generally supportive (and more importantly, there was no serious objecting/disagreement with the content). I have doubts about going further and trying and get IETF "consensus" and make it a BCP or something stronger, as the community is likely fundamentally divided on the question of "how serious" the problem is. I suspect that no one really has the desire or energy to have that debate yet again.

I do think the document should say that it was put together by the directorate, listing the members and so forth, but without trying to claim that because it was done by a directorate, it has some sort of special cachet or extra weight.  But at the same time, I don't think we should lose the history of how the document was developed.

Thoughts?

Thomas

---

From: Vince Fuller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:29:17 -0800

> in the last revision was to take out more of the "business judgement"
...

Hi Thomas-

Good summary of the state of the problem statement document. I agree
with what you wrote.

	--Vince

---

From: Jason Schiller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:33:29 +0000 (UTC)

I agrre.. I think the draft is fairly well baked and we should publish it 
and then close down the RADIR.

__Jason

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Vince Fuller wrote:

|Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:29:17 -0800
|From: Vince Fuller <[email-masked]>
|To: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
|Cc: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
|Subject: Re: [RADIR] Should RADir be closed?
|
|On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 09:17:39AM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
|> > I have not seen much activity here in quite some time.  Has the 
|> > directorate outlived its usefulness?
|> 
|> I think there is agreement we don't have a real purpose at this point
|> and energy seems to have moved elswhere.
|> 
|> But, I think the problem statement document we put together is pretty
|> good and I think it should get published as an info RFC. The last
|> version was in pretty good shape (IMO), but hadn't really gotten much
|> feedback either way, so others may think otherwise. (The main change
|> in the last revision was to take out more of the "business judgement"
|> as being out-of-scope.)
|...
|
|Hi Thomas-
|
|Good summary of the state of the problem statement document. I agree
|with what you wrote.
|
|	--Vince
|_______________________________________________
|RADIR mailing list
[email-masked]
|https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir
|