Fwd: Re: Is this group dead?
Bob Day
On the JANET-IP matter, I suspect it's now outlived its usefulness,
but as it is, and has been for a long time, a general list rather than a
specific list of UKERNA, I think any decision about its future belongs
elsewhere. But we certainly now use other means of disseminating
information.
On NTLG, yes we plan to continue this list, and to use it for dissemination
of network engineering topics. There are potentially a number of interesting
discussions to have as the IP QoS work starts up, for instance.
The need to convene meetings of NTLG seems less likely though,
as we seem nowadays to concentrate on more specific "workshop"
events c.f. the QoS workshop at the end of July (see:
http://www.ja.net/conferences/qos/index.html
for details, if interested). But it seems to us worthwhile keeping the
NTLG concept and email list in place.
Bob
>>At 07:14 PM 6/7/01 +0100, Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk wrote:
>>> > On 7 Jun 2001 07:26:23 -0700, Peter Smyth <psm...@ukf.net> wrote:
>>> > >Looking through the archives on Google for this newsgroup
>>> > >(uk.net.jips) it appears that the only messages being sent here are
>>> > >spam. The last on-topic message that I can find is 17th May 2000.
>>> > >Therefore unless some people reply to this who think this group is
>>> > >still useful I will post an RFD to uk.net.news.config asking for the
>>> > >removal of this group.
>>> > >
>>> > >Peter Smyth
>>> >
>>> > I was thinking the same myself only the other day. Back in the days
>>> > when we (ac.uk) were running IP over X.25 (often using hardware not
>>> > commonly found elsewhere), I think there was a good argument for a
>>> > UK forum for mutual support. But those times are gone, thankfully.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure this is whole story. Back in The Old Days (tm) (no, not Ye
>>>Olde Days when we had the Coloured Book protocols) the janet-ip mailing
>>>list and its linked newsgroup were partnered by a number of closed
>>>mailing lists - dodag, iptag, lltag etc.. The folks on the UKERNA
>>>advisory groups used the closed list for technical discussion, whilst
>>>more public announcements and discussion came out on
>>>janet-ip/uk.net.jips.
>>>
>>>These days UKERNA seem to have stopped announcing things on janet-ip,
>>>instead using NTLG, the successor to the closed lists, for all their
>>>announcements about networking technologies. If it's a conscious
>>>decision that all public info and discussion takes place on NTLG rather
>>>than janet-ip then it can be removed, but I that's not what I thought
>>>was the purpose of NTLG the group, rather than NTLG the mailing list.
>>>
>>>Anyone from UKERNA care to comment? Bob? Kevin? Baoyu? Ady? Who's
>>>supposed to look after NTLG these days?
>>>
>>>
>>>Sam Wilson
>>>Network Services Division
>>>Computing Services, The University of Edinburgh
>>>Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Jon Harley
On Fri Jul 06 2001, Bob Day wrote:
> On the JANET-IP matter, I suspect it's now outlived its usefulness,
> but as it is, and has been for a long time, a general list rather than a
> specific list of UKERNA, I think any decision about its future belongs
> elsewhere. But we certainly now use other means of disseminating
> information.
The janet-ip list and mail/news gateway lives at Warwick, so I guess if
someone has to make a decision, it must be us.
Looks like it's dead to me. Any objections if I bury it?
Jon
__________________________________________________________
Dr JW Harley <J.W.H...@warwick.ac.uk> x24217
IT Services department, University of Warwick, Coventry UK
Full details at http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/J.W.Harley/
John Line
Jon Harley <J.W.H...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>On Fri Jul 06 2001, Bob Day wrote:
>
>> On the JANET-IP matter, I suspect it's now outlived its usefulness,
>> but as it is, and has been for a long time, a general list rather than a
>> specific list of UKERNA, I think any decision about its future belongs
>> elsewhere. But we certainly now use other means of disseminating
>> information.
>
>The janet-ip list and mail/news gateway lives at Warwick, so I guess if
>someone has to make a decision, it must be us.
>
>Looks like it's dead to me. Any objections if I bury it?
No, but don't forget that the newsgroup will need to be removed explicitly,
via the usual uk.* RFD process etc. And since it's set up as a normal group
(not moderated with articles all received via the list and gateway), it's
not inherent that if the gateway goes, the group is redundant. The long-term
absence of anything other than spam and discussion about there being nothing
but spam should make a reasonable case, though!
John
--
John Line - Cambridge University Computing Service, New Museums Site,
Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, United Kingdom.
Internet: jm...@cam.ac.uk Phone: +44 1223 334708 FAX: +44 1223 334679
Charles Lindsey
>No, but don't forget that the newsgroup will need to be removed explicitly,
>via the usual uk.* RFD process etc. And since it's set up as a normal group
>(not moderated with articles all received via the list and gateway), it's
>not inherent that if the gateway goes, the group is redundant. The long-term
>absence of anything other than spam and discussion about there being nothing
>but spam should make a reasonable case, though!
Well it has been thought about often, but I have always argued that this
group gets useful whenever some major UKERNA outage/whatever occurs, which
seems to happen every 9 months or so.
But if there is some official UKERNA opinion that the group is no longer
useful, then I think that would settle the matter, and removal would
follow.
Alternatively, it might change into a more general IP network/propagation
group.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Jon Harley
>But if there is some official UKERNA opinion that the group is no longer
>useful, then I think that would settle the matter, and removal would
>follow.
Bob Day indicates that UKERNA will continue only to make announcements on
the NTLG list.
I have received no objections, so I've therefore removed the janet-ip
mailing list and mail/news gateway with this group.
Jon
--
Nick Maclaren
In article <9jovti$2fr$1...@wallaby.csv.warwick.ac.uk>,
j...@wallaby.csv.warwick.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
|> c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
|> >But if there is some official UKERNA opinion that the group is no longer
|> >useful, then I think that would settle the matter, and removal would
|> >follow.
|>
|> Bob Day indicates that UKERNA will continue only to make announcements on
|> the NTLG list.
|>
|> I have received no objections, so I've therefore removed the janet-ip
|> mailing list and mail/news gateway with this group.
Well, the last time that this came up, a lot of people said that it
was a hell of a lot more convenient to watch peripheral announcements
on a newsgroup. UKERNA effectively said "We don't want to make
announcements publicly, including mirroring them to a newsgroup,
because it will merely encourage you peasants to make comments."
It isn't at all surprising that this group is dead, given UKERNA's
attitude.
I have some need to watch UKERNA's announcements, but I really don't
want any more junk in my mail; it already causes me major problems.
I am one of the many computing staff in UK academia who would like
UKERNA announcements mirrored to a newsgroup. I agree that there is
damn-all point in having a separate mechanism, unless we want to
mount a political campaign to get UKERNA's monopoly revoked.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email: nm...@cam.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
keith dancey
In article 1...@wallaby.csv.warwick.ac.uk, j...@wallaby.csv.warwick.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>>But if there is some official UKERNA opinion that the group is no longer
>>useful, then I think that would settle the matter, and removal would
>>follow.
>
>Bob Day indicates that UKERNA will continue only to make announcements on
>the NTLG list.
>
>I have received no objections, so I've therefore removed the janet-ip
>mailing list and mail/news gateway with this group.
I think this is sad. I'm sufficiently interested technically to subscribe
to the newsgroup, but not sufficiently involved practically to want another
mailing list.
Under those conditions, my administering of mailing list input is more time
consuming and less self-organising than dealing with newsgroup content. But
I feel (a) my preferences are of little or no importance and (b) a closed
world curls up even tighter.
Cheers all the same,
keith