Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions

Rob Sayre <> Fri, 13 March 2020 06:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015913A11D7 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:36:38 -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, 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 e4Vs9UgTLIqo for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:36:36 -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 2F1113A11D0 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a6so7872174ilc.4 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:36:36 -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=74OcSHIZWB+4pf/kbO4DqCPAZjZpiT6IRPLf1varMcA=; b=kbeBNbv1IPDnqhidYk2VsjptmFqmz2wjme6RkOU/UZXmqGx0WiZjGOfVos6FFob/QK bsS36Q4VWQLWvULLsnfMhJyYHU/MX6vUSxS4/2G84W9HPCzSfotSEU3WiN3K7oFm9lb3 R6p8Jnun/pA7V5oT1XKnZa+H6Agv3oq3bAA0Ta5KoovQQX1eXpEfHNVNa+xkLM0m/pYE L6R/aK7QD+20TyLytZFsc7u8bZhBM+o23u86hIfP3quS651JTR42v79U5uHQjZuBahof h3r7UdbTsssB+XX/K7ZMkBe8R6uRLHAVEJ3ykmB4CLuPlhB66PuvDSYjt4LcMvdj5ozj KuWg==
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=74OcSHIZWB+4pf/kbO4DqCPAZjZpiT6IRPLf1varMcA=; b=XkaGcqFot8YSfPIHvV0TztYjhCRhSJym0YnG9SdQeZjiw5VkPj/63+CvRj/zm+hcGi 4PzULfP/DUsDi/QmsyWXq6gdy8vBsnC8RdZOapMbh887pcdFa3EXiF8fY2meuoBcpfLT MSI4VJpCBwPVFlx2UZtrr3K13sg0g6aw/2GCuJGdYPDMxPC2TyIJjlqIPeVvig5SwBnP HigwopMZ5Mb/0GPDL5kA32rRJ5GTxH8/SAfKotAsCrVusURQEc0n8zNMPGoRHXt2yco1 V0Cw9MdAAWy41mqMpAo7yJYYYPBxuC41aOAeD33jvFjfCu3qCWxL7kmsfyKNBWafjuq1 f/1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3n5QNxsJ1kKDThPFDSgdbsq+BzyYuZSIHoV0jlyHDglGsZl8ao EJ/NDa1XyALuJxx49sg5sQj6D0CbY5l/uYWADOA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vvW2GYnRrrzxTB3zXeD6Wgh5YsPDJs+I8Bm9rj4?= =?utf-8?q?znwaBsATD8KIfssNHcrzRp2xj0s6883v5ebhnZAAo0XMuyU=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:5f98:: with SMTP id i24mr6704062ill.73.1584081395277; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Rob Sayre <>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:36:22 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: Barry Leiba <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dc65fc05a0b6b0e5"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 06:36:38 -0000


In my view, the experiment is a success.

It seems like the general IETF is currently concerned with issues not
related to document review.


On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:14 AM Barry Leiba <> wrote:

> As we discussed in the plenary session at IETF 105 in Montréal, some
> community members have suggested moving document last-call discussions
> onto a dedicated "last-call" mailing list, and off of the general
> <> list.  The latter is a high-volume list with a lot of
> varied discussion, and some think that it would be useful to separate
> the general discussion from the last-call discussion, to allow people
> to choose which discussions (or both) to follow.  In the IETF 105
> plenary, support was expressed for that separation.
> The IESG agrees, and wants to try an experiment to that end.  We
> propose to create <> and to direct last-call
> comments and discussions there (the last-call announcements would
> still go to <>rg>, with "reply-to" set to the new
> list).  That list would be monitored by volunteers recruited by the
> IETF Chair, and digressions would be nudged back to <>rg>,
> while we would ask people having last-call discussions on this list to
> please move them to the new list.  We would get the tools team
> involved so that the distribution lists for directorate and
> review-team reviews would be updated appropriately.
> Our plan is to create the new list and pre-subscribe everyone who is
> subscribed to <> at that time.  Of course, anyone could
> unsubscribe to either or both lists immediately or later, but we think
> that doing it this way would minimize the likelihood that people would
> miss important stuff because of the move, and folks can choose what
> they prefer from there.
> After six months, we would do an initial evaluation, including getting
> feedback from the community, to see how the experiment is working.  If
> it seems worth continuing we would do so, and at a point that the
> community decides that the experiment is a success (should it so
> decide), we would start an update to BCP 45 to formally move the
> location for last-call discussions, and we would update the 2007 IESG
> Statement on Last Call Guidance.
> We invite comments, here, on this plan, by the end of September. As I
> say above, we've heard support from the community for the general
> idea, and we'd like to make sure this direction is what the community
> wants.
> Barry, for the IESG