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

Barry Leiba <> Mon, 16 September 2019 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204831200F1 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 07:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.923
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.026, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VZODfqr7lqfJ for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 07:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E2E01200E6 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 07:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b136so79074032iof.3 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 07:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
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=+gMNFtvBJjhwMtC6UY3CRjmO8u6Fajr79CCJtw3TWjQ=; b=cw3N5DbYEkby09o2zq02nVQF4WeEfET99z/D/nIxPoQiDL92i7/Wv2k1c8UedDZ8gB 6l7Bt4nlnrbs7KodX0YyIXQYIuxeTDT2R9P8em6ZbBqBEz/sM0T/oUUeBg1t51EHasPh lxcdUioTUqUmStExHEG3PROMcweCFX+8V/u5k4YxbXbqnwRsMlzPSMoOqHvR9BBG71Iw 4Cha/JDy42xjlhaOORcFWkmuZIe1m+3VffJANTUsTGr3Z7Hz8NyRdWCS9wcg/OETF6Hp HGAjyD9HcWwy+H6Clv15Ebsjaqp4fiQl7JZayveUm8+1tS9uubCMDw12xvBLluTzrPE1 eoNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUXykx00orh8sJpvHuykcqAb2/9k/KuIiz4wcyUOr2tvIoLPpM4 TNlwTXdEP6Anesc3vmXEBQGr1w7S9YG36lj3sBo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyAv3kVYFuu0wzigpHk0Ehizpwb7BNxGdqMkvxa+lxhcjjl+KBjU+iTqp9MggGnnPTM5/b1DKXZA9k8gKrpcbY=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:96c6:: with SMTP id r6mr131967iol.266.1568643367258; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 07:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F81AE7E530D4651A0806B087@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <F81AE7E530D4651A0806B087@PSB>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 07:15:56 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: John C Klensin <>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <>, Bob Hinden <>, IETF <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:16:11 -0000

Hi, John,

> But, again, my concern is that we get the best cross-area
> reviews possible and reach IETF consensus on that basis, not
> that WG participation and consensus within the WG is unimportant.

Indeed, John, and I understand and agree with that.

I think the issue is that you (and a few others) are concerned that if
we move last-call discussion to another list, fewer people will follow
that list, and, therefore, fewer people will be exposed to the
last-call discussions and possibly be moved to join some of them.

On the other hand, others, including the people who suggested the
split in the first place, think that actually *more* people will be
likely to pay attention to the last-call discussion if they're on a
mailing list that's separate from the high-volume that is the IETF
Discussion list.

As these are both valid views and we don't know which is correct, it
seems to me that the only way to find out what will *actually* happen
will be to run the experiment.  Do you know another way?