Re: [Gendispatch] Ending <-- the dispatch question

Rob Sayre <> Fri, 09 April 2021 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21143A226F for <>; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L4XQVD9YLV9A for <>; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2888C3A226E for <>; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 7so1632767ilz.0 for <>; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xAGIDdLtPGaV9aREopiGesi1MQxWyoXsxG0SYwGTfXc=; b=BaYQC5I0iCIczz01XSA0lz+hFZU7cW4owpJO6THw6FUd/W2NWIOsAq9lukW0L7Pcs+ iqYCl3n81KCIyjWtF+3BssLo+XjWDIttdfPCbGBfz80TfpnNwJbx0hRU22Zj8EbInvtP RjiRK1XWg0Y+CWblQEVq92OpS5DqDXUJLZ1f/Tr4uV5dCmAYRUIuu1ANCkN6a24SGpv0 gmA9rq4vstZRdsoC/Ts/VI5c4AIw/4SW+N3NxZvOgte/UYQ0xiyZFOiaUINaj2zNvf9D 88qFnJ3KjOUhbN4jtqrgAH7jLbtdrvIg6iyubeH7APXuGNOvS4qP57Be0mP22T46Ipuh 7psQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xAGIDdLtPGaV9aREopiGesi1MQxWyoXsxG0SYwGTfXc=; b=BiFKZ/dDqoNhhD52UuLESPszkrcdbUDo1x1pDcZqE0sSBQ4FcR+pD5EZLBurwFRrhO iBBwp250edQgQZxdXVU0vXAkIyerR1IEpwFmixZxe6+2SPRKfB76H/D0zbv5nKHnNaP+ JEl9jTBLz49ZjbppUtnVFSnuZ/PolT0g6xaCZ5ql0XPmDJ+ZhSuj4atM+8vZPXLjHNfv JyGkrNTrKWH8oygTbGEHr3SbUonn3KileLP/Hsk77uGHxU5hukfRUxyUAlohNV4nPXlD tk9LuEaCp38lWzu/4ZY22BPDH5PvZFY861ZPdCJiMsg9nvlq+fTNr6p67lFZsuH+ohLw YtsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533XN2KYiLzP9DRkUtnCFCO8Q8B7MlKHvCULIWVgSD40SRJpoJd2 /O+0nKaxs/KFz6sFEKOtkSPvOaJq1l/SR2DvzDc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxVKjA+/q9Dz93LijepoaVVueh/BJv/M9+zFTXb/t53PBaD7LLJGcZAgeLCjNy3L9QAjOza07ZpEUJsSP+eexI=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:d68c:: with SMTP id p12mr9319040iln.73.1617926461595; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Rob Sayre <>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:00:50 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Mark Nottingham <>
Cc: Pete Resnick <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000004244105bf7edc2c"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Ending <-- the dispatch question
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 00:01:08 -0000

I looked into this a bit more, and re-read RFC 3005 (which does not seem to
be being followed). Mark's draft is useful, and correctly describes many
issues, but I think a document that obsoletes RFC 3005 is what's required.

I wrote this as a first draft:

## Charter for the General IETF Mailing List

The general IETF mailing list,, exists to communicate the
activities of the IETF as a whole. While discussion is permitted, the list
is not intended to host lengthy discussions on any topic. As this is the
most general IETF mailing list, participants SHOULD first seek more
appropriate venues before sending a message. If that effort fails, asking
questions about where or how to address an issue is OK.

The general IETF list also distributes brief summaries from related
organizations, such as the IESG, IAB, ISE, the RFC Editor, and the IETF
Administrative function. These updates SHOULD contain recommendations on
the correct venue for discussion. Other lists, such as
and contain more detailed records, such as specific
dates for interim WG meetings.

Advertising, whether to solicit business or promote employment
opportunities, falls well outside the range of acceptable topics, as do
discussions of a personal nature.

## Charter for

Historically, the general IETF list allowed more free-flowing discussion.
In order to respect the time of the IETF's many participants, these
discussions now reside at This list furthers
the development and specification of Internet technology through discussion
of technical issues. It also hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy,
meetings, and procedures. As this is the IETF mailing list with the most
general charter, considerable latitude is allowed. [...recommendations from
Mark's draft...]

Advertising, whether to solicit business or promote employment
opportunities, falls well outside the range of acceptable topics, as do
discussions of a personal nature.

## Obsoleting RFC 3005

Since RFC 3005 does not distinguish between and, there must be a process that creates the
distinction. The policies outlined above for will become
effective when this draft becomes a BCP. Participants will not be
automatically subscribed to, but the IETF Chair
will post a notification when this change policy becomes effective, and
will do so on a montly basis for six months.


On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 5:11 PM Rob Sayre <> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 5:07 PM Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
>> My position is still best summarised here:
> Ah, I've read this draft before, and I agree with what it says, as far as
> it goes.
> I'll think about combining this and R. Wilton's ideas.
> thanks,
> Rob
>> > On 8 Apr 2021, at 4:23 am, Rob Sayre <> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 6:41 AM Pete Resnick <>
>> wrote:
>> > On 6 Apr 2021, at 19:23, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd observe that last-call@ was introduced by the IESG after community
>> consultation. Is that a potential path for dispatch -- i.e., saying "IESG,
>> you might want to look at this..."?
>> >
>> > Yep, that's on the list in the charter:
>> > - Requesting that the the IESG or the IETF LLC consider taking up the
>> work.
>> > Nonetheless, I think the IESG would appreciate a draft to look at.
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't feel the need to drive here. If Mark wants to, that's fine with
>> me. This problem seems to be a bit of a hot potato.
>> >
>> > But I'll put on my flame-retardant pants and write the I-D if
>> necessary. :)
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Rob
>> >
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham