Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 01 October 2021 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471F13A02BB for <>; Fri, 1 Oct 2021 12:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 8q-JT0FYlia4 for <>; Fri, 1 Oct 2021 12:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 601DC3A012A for <>; Fri, 1 Oct 2021 12:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 66so9882154pgc.9 for <>; Fri, 01 Oct 2021 12:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FN9I+23JAJRcXXv85KzNBOtdfY9ES/Mpt2Xd4cN/gZU=; b=CNdIQAD6yERWXhvF7lU1TM9whfAWQfZFeu70aYddtIcSShDxEV2jBsa4wnbVZhxwyo i1F+EwjZc8ZtPhLvtcxyIYIqQmrAju3PGRhMN9E/rJCZtt7eUpi/5Nc2LMEbtQjzktf6 fDUDV1Am4Uy+nFuhAjbAZpEodbzs97navb/hSj10rAaK6/Z3Tk3EP12Jzbg+8PksgTG6 Lv3zDpMsde2P+Q9g8osAhhu6naZKYs9+MFXOGfDt8DsHms9Nlx+kuTi9lY7xogJKFVYG SJbE/68IjIybEQV+iZRSB+QJSiiVMotw2qOyeTNXv9t1RhyZELyGdbXZlN/kGWvvixU6 NOLw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FN9I+23JAJRcXXv85KzNBOtdfY9ES/Mpt2Xd4cN/gZU=; b=udnRKzq1GFmHs68UYhETlnGaxloVGBfq6FBwIQp17PJ1ncLe3gxLFETPf51hnd2iTl rGOGNmN1iwkwmnMU/FgSxx6g3N2loXFFIkXiXxagBcx/ZcTqoJ2uNWK+yvzsL97yLv9j qZuwOxpNJGdR1slm4yyGQis1UGsBrGObNyGrosLHp8Sq6aHTQn7Jebkqt875gJXbdRax 76kibaE6idYjU0Rkk6Bm7hUKfW3vl4/xeATBHeXhSMHakVJdsLphcUSgz0NwcJD9nia4 1TKiG5i3ml6QbjL7D9Kxe0lvsTyKW8BeuBPodzYhGsqfqNVZ++SFTavRmWvLa0g5z6JW LNjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5324blYl1nWdFjFWpSBCO5NHPmZDV9Bllpo5A/VPAqmqWJAPPfwf SgyWrqVW0V8qy/CiJKF2QbJxCw3iqxzx+Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzhkcWpkbODRQcz+ImOhBnOUuFigpUZnAXPTYL5LP0QOXUHPHireSvXMO0qxBHvcGw0Kvv5pg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:f306:: with SMTP id l6mr10823950pgh.72.1633115491353; Fri, 01 Oct 2021 12:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:11aa:d701:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:11aa:d701:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by with ESMTPSA id z65sm7052371pfc.30.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Oct 2021 12:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: Lars Eggert <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 08:11:27 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt
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, 01 Oct 2021 19:11:36 -0000

On 30-Sep-21 21:52, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2021-9-30, at 0:52, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
>> 1) The current BCP45 states "It also hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, meetings, and procedures." That has been deleted in the draft, which leaves a gap.
> Most of those topics moved to admin-discuss and the meeting attendees lists. Others are in scope for gendispatch (although I am unsure whether a possibly ephemeral WG should be explicitly named in the BCP).
>> I think that the list of appropriate postings should include something like:
>> * Discussions of IETF direction, policy, and the standards process in general.
>> (and perhaps mention that drafts in this area go to GENDISPATCH.)
> I think this may be a little too broad. How about:
> * Discussions of IETF direction, policy, and the standards process
>   in general, when a more suitable list (such as admin-discuss,
>   architecture-discuss, a meeting attendees list, or a
>   process-oriented WG list) cannot be identified.

Yes, exactly right.

>> 2) I suggest an extra sentence just after this:
>>> These topics used to be in scope for the IETF discussion list, but have since moved to dedicated lists:
>>> * Last Call discussions of proposed protocol actions now take place on the IETF Last Calls mailing list [LAST-CALLS].
>>> * Discussion of IETF administrative policies now take place on the discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues [ADMIN-DISCUSS].
>> Add:
>> However, if the discussion is broader than the specific protocol concerned, or than administration as such, it may revert to the IETF discussion list, preferably with an appropriate change of the Subject header.
>> [For example, if the Last Call discussion identifies a completely separate technical requirement, or if the admin discussion identifies a problem with the standards process.]
> I agree that should be possible. Do you think that with the proposed change above, this would still need to be explicitly called out again?

This would be on the "for avoidance of doubt" axis. Personally I am very keen that people should change the Subject when changing the subject, in which case this would not need to be stated. 


> Thanks,
> Lars