[492] in Kerberos_Protocol

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: deletion of people from krb-protocol (mailing list merge)

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Raeburn)
Thu Aug 3 14:34:33 2000

To: Jerome H Saltzer in Idaho <Saltzer@mit.edu>
Cc: krb-protocol@mit.edu, ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov
From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@MIT.EDU>
Date: 03 Aug 2000 14:33:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: Jerome H Saltzer in Idaho's message of "Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:13:06 -0600"
Message-ID: <tx1hf92ry8g.fsf@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


> One of the features of the krb-protocol list is that MIT students who think
> they are interested in following the proceedings can temporarily and
> quietly add themselves to the list using already-familiar Athena list
> maintenance facilities, and equally quietly remove themselves later; if
> they graduate without removing themselves, the system automatically removes
> them when their MIT mailbox vanishes, minimizing bounces.  These are nice
> features that are worth maintaining.

> You didn't mention the reason for proposing the merger, but if it is
> because some people are on both lists and receiving two copies of messages,

Basically, redundancy.  We've got two different lists used for mostly
overlapping purposes.  (Not entirely -- krb4 protocol questions might
not be welcome on ietf-krb-wg, and WG procedural matters wouldn't be
of much interest to krb-protocol.)  One rather quiet at MIT, and the
IETF list newly set up and getting traffic.

I would've suggested just re-using krb-protocol for the working group
traffic, but our mailing list maintenance is still completely lame as
far as dealing with external subscribers.  (In terms of visible
functionality, I don't think it's changed any since you were at
Athena.  Well, maybe it crashes less.)  Jeff's been working on a web
interface, but IMHO the support isn't complete if it can't handle
email requests like every other list manager does, preferably with at
least minimal authentication, and ideally automatically deal with
bounces somewhat intelligently, like some of the more modern ones are
starting to.  Tom and I already get more than enough bounces off the
Kerberos list, as do the senders.

Besides, ANL might be more likely to stay off lists like ORBS.

> I suggest another approach:
> 
> 1.  Add krb-protocol as a recipient of the list ietf-krb-wg.

I think Doug has his list set up to reject messages from
non-subscribers; this could lead to confusion among new krb-protocol
subscribers who decide they want to contribute to the discussion.

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post