Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate

David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> Wed, 25 February 2009 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8C83A68E4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.051, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q7ELH5LONff8 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from email.xpasc.com (email.xpasc.com [65.85.17.142]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FECC3A67FC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bslepgate.xpasc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bslepgate.xpasc.com (Postfix-out) with ESMTP id 9932E101881; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Propel-Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
Received: from email.xpasc.com ([10.1.2.88]) by [127.0.0.1] ([127.0.0.1]) (port 7027) (Abaca EPG outproxy filter 3.1.1.9347 $Rev: 9262 $) id iz6Ur92p15V0; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:57 -0800
Received: from xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by bslepgate.xpasc.com (Postfix-out) with ESMTP id 59991101853; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from egate.xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by xpasc.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1P15s5I032748; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:54 -0800
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:54 -0800
From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate
In-Reply-To: <1F37C3B8-ABF4-4193-B65F-DF4FD21D58E8@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0902241704430.17049@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <20090213001531.2CFE46BE551@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4994D366.5010206@gmail.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.0902121802050.25480@egate.xpasc.com> <4994DC20.2070107@es2eng.com> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A0301B8C882@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0902131009460.25480@egate.xpasc.com> <1F37C3B8-ABF4-4193-B65F-DF4FD21D58E8@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Propel-ID: iz6Ur92p15V0
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:05:40 -0000

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:

>
> On Feb 13, 2009, at 11:15 AM, David Morris wrote:
>
>> while providing the operational efficiency of collecting all discussion in 
>> one place for actual analysis of last call
>
> While there may be better ways of doing it, I'll note the IETF LC subject 
> line is constructed to make it possible to find the LC comments. If you 
> remove the draft name from subject line of any LC replies, you substantially 
> reduce the odds of them being found and read by the IESG.

But by forcing that assumption, you preclude the possiblity of 
sub-dividing the discussion into related topics.