Re: [apps-discuss] Another use case for a per-recipient header field: Opened IESG discussions

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 30 July 2013 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E34B21F96DA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OiathYS2oAHu for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 814DA21F969F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.132.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6UIniQE010270 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1375210195; bh=Vw3PzC9doau7eK23yb7G3mYokbVijxjet+7zNl1pADM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=cHOirRkh50mC+YTw70soqAjfgxo6QIRZnbQpKsnO9Xv6beSRLPsUx/eUmEKElt3UU WWavZXYNTqW1AzgvZLnxEv43a5k7c1yjByoxrzFjY5ANsFH7fRi/Lrtsy3lKpX5F/N NjrDUCaCG5C/+f5Y2A5p10JALPciMX/1/WLSXaVY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1375210195; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Vw3PzC9doau7eK23yb7G3mYokbVijxjet+7zNl1pADM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=aF+Rz9eli9Le8xCohKL0RAGA7z8cfWfClDKUnGTuAztW4P8+L3hRqk/eELOG1xgd/ mX5EFDiHdG2BWiFxjtJUdMAa4xWCO8m+r/kYMkbMBmxa7wQJElGOSZzLt91Y7LqxHM thQ49O4Aqd5GVrzSFHJ/9uNV3wJhFK/+SN7d5zYQ=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130730112004.0cc22440@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:45:58 -0700
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <51F7EA73.8030107@tana.it>
References: <51F7EA73.8030107@tana.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Another use case for a per-recipient header field: Opened IESG discussions
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:49:59 -0000

Hi Alessandro,
At 09:31 30-07-2013, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>I like that new feature of posting IESG positions CC to the WG mailing
>list.  It eases navigation through posts about a given I-D, making ML
>archives more complete.
>
>Monday, Pete said it is a matter of waiting ten minutes instead of five
>before replying to such posts.  That is often implicit in the header:
>Recipients in the "To:" field are expected to reply soon, while those in
>"Cc:" may want to think twice.  The only problem is when there are so
>many different kinds of recipients that they can hardly be grouped into
>two groups (three, if you count Bcc:).  That issue can be solved with a
>new header field, similar in syntax to RRVS.  E.g.:
>
>Think-Before-Reply:  apps-discuss@ietf.org; 10 minutes

My alternative would be to have these messages go to the moderation queue.  :-)

I like what you said above.  I doubt that expecting people to use the 
"To:" and "Cc:" fields correctly will work in practice.  There was 
this experiment where "The IESG <noreply@ietf.org>" was used in the 
"Cc:" field.  The people who replied to the message did not remove 
that email address.

One of the cases is a comment (not a DISCUSS) from an Area Director 
(e.g. 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg09963.html 
).  In my opinion replies to such messages do not have to be copied 
to iesg@ietf.org.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy