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

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 12 September 2019 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C95512011A for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 FYc2QjVUZP1A for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D55C812006E for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n4so14097453pgv.2 for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4AQcarCdYjChdLC8Lx9YxSYpHVEvBc72UPFhw0FMSgI=; b=WFb/kY5YHBRilNMJAczEQDI6X5buDewDbyxpZa4DDXWPEeY/HG20+0ONp8tonk8A6r wcvFK6XJeyV8twNysI9ohOV6yt9CG9N1hVS4IdKfo68pNiPt5bJSoNU4u/0wMfYxJkCf qFywm/uSXBs5fFiZ0QYQWgw+r40CHV2YXdc2dqg38hHko1j+lJpefl5FFgZzP/97GpJk HMtdb738FlJ8pG2hpmEUCHOzUyXgkeNa6QKOO485ddb/2F7pANI3OJJKLndiGFTmhMS3 4tNUBwPitbhl2sgtFWQhKV7o+06ntgYvSXO8a12kr9yqg6/dxDcdDNENdY57qjy8qWft 2ohQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4AQcarCdYjChdLC8Lx9YxSYpHVEvBc72UPFhw0FMSgI=; b=lS7uqocJqyZ13hAcPH2epGSvRdheMso3GbZPPw4Xa+QW8iQ+swMSpDpf4RNAi7ZcaU ymGCuDgQllIepuSRTbaQPHXGV66fHaUJBhG9nE7ygIbNvj5Sxb+iZQF/N1c2HAJT2EiR pj7kUx/GQUSRwaLVDBOHkeRtYHAJ5qvXpvjdT/KW6yrsFXeXYA1zF83WWu053iErLwEk yPlfoqfc1HwtZrj8P1+3LvcoJOofqjgn1mw2scDVWMewT1l5sF6QORZy6vLHyY6TvBr6 Xw9hVvCOmhmS/Bh2G4Yiw7BpTdSxQD+6qSFt1ft+d9dz65i7xEG19wE2MZQ/qWrPKh2Z Tkug==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWBP5uMUpvp+DyJXmtZLkHNGHnm+rEpQyHY+hdQ84MTmTX425sE f0ckWGMSyiWrb9C5w9euKT141Y/c
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxUVmBYgTfEJOVqCb6oKPkF8lK9KgP2dhJ2L+y2hQLIrGqh7KaNBVQru3NAlUWQ8uwwfs+YtQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:8c12:: with SMTP id a18mr700616pjo.128.1568320990063; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id h11sm24234651pgv.5.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: Barry Leiba <>, IETF discussion list <>
References: <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:43:08 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 20:43:13 -0000

Three comments:

1. Slightly to my surprise, this is fully consistent with RFC 2026, which
   This "Last-Call" notification shall be
   via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list.  Comments on a
   Last-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent as
   directed in the Last-Call announcement.
I think there may be other places where the list is documented
as the venue for last calls, but for the experiment, we're fine.

2. Are we sure? Yes, this will reduce traffic on the list, but one view is
that it's the most important traffic of all.

3. Personally, I simply don't care. I will adjust my filters to direct the
displaced traffic to the same inbox as


On 13-Sep-19 04:14, 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
> .