[Gendispatch] Updating BCP45 (was: Fwd: is last-call working the way the IESG intended?)

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Mon, 29 March 2021 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFE13A0E78 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 05:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2jzPtA_kRLSL for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 05:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C5383A0E76 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 05:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:4da5:a954:5ac7:bb36] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:4da5:a954:5ac7:bb36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE96060031A for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 15:14:43 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1617020083; bh=RDyvLBYE877O86LZTg9kLhvtL8Iehei/+sRU/Szez/I=; h=From:Subject:References:To:Date; b=Z5Nj3RkNMsPqgzWVsRfRZXWygZWfGKDnJDmdPgtadvaWTPXPrTowSelfz3DvV8YwP TO9RypNPgNOJ0E2dJxOtyKipE2Z3FPlvdLTQ0hXkr8pCAIuUBzHwJyvmKdW/sim/ue 5OJAdfoeEY2YYqyDcienL18noePLTHFRBbVKZ9Hw=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_599D099B-38F5-4F0C-8AEE-2C64794475DF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Message-Id: <145A469E-F1AB-4970-829A-CCF87B26869F@eggert.org>
References: <C5B76606-C87A-4342-B764-0B53007E42E2@eggert.org>
To: gendispatch@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 15:14:43 +0300
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
X-MailScanner-ID: CE96060031A.A22C9
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/D94CXSfhIcsHFKyRfj0HkwkS5oM>
Subject: [Gendispatch] Updating BCP45 (was: Fwd: is last-call working the way the IESG intended?)
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:15:01 -0000


FYI, I started an individual draft to update BCP45 as promised as a consequence of the successful conclusion of the last-call experiment some years back. Id like to ask to have the discussion of this I-D on the gendispatch list. More context below.


> Begin forwarded message:
> From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
> Subject: Re: is last-call working the way the IESG intended?
> Date: March 29, 2021 at 15:10:45 GMT+3
> To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>, ietf@ietf.org
> Hi Michael,
> On 2021-3-16, at 22:20, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>> There has been a very long thread on last-call about the crocker draft on
>> email emojis.  I'm now seeing the secdir review of
>> draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01 and subsequent thread
>> related to that.  (Not yet as long as emoji)
>> Now, I think that the crocker draft was AD sponsored so maybe it didn't have
>> another place for the thread to go.  But, certain draft-ietf-ecrit should
>> go back to ecrit list only?
> both of these threads were on Last Call reviews, and so the last-call mailing list is an appropriate home for them.
> I'll also note that he discussion on draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01 was CC'ed to the ecrit WG, so you could set up your mail filter to move those into your ecrit mail folder instead of the last-call folder, should you prefer that.
>> I'm just wondering if last-call is working the way it was imagined it would,
>> or if there are some anomalies here.   Should some kind of Reply-To: be enforced?
> We discussed this in the IESG, and we believe that the last-call mailing list is working as intended. I'll note that there was a lengthy discussion (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1Jum0QW3b6AATJXF31P3g7IpUF4/) six months after the last-call experiment started that seemed to indicate that the community agrees with that assessment.
> Looking back at the mail archives, I noticed that the email establishing the last-call experiment (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LiB_dlvv3ZFlTF8hGp7GbGngqSg/) suggested two actions in the case that the experiment concluded successfully, which seem to have not been implemented yet:
> 1. update BCP 45 to formally move the location for last-call discussions (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3005/)
> 2. update the 2007 IESG Statement on Last Call Guidance (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/last-call-guidance/)
> I've started an individual draft on the fist item (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-bcp45bis/), and we'll discuss the second item in the IESG.
> Thanks,
> Lars Eggert
> IETF Chair