Re: Best list for IETF last calls [was: Weekly posting summary for [e-mail]]

[Ray Pelletier <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 8, 2013, at 6:09 AM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I believe that last calls must stay on this ietf list.
> 
> Any last-call-only list must be *in addition* to the ietf list, with all announcements crossposted, and anyone sensitive to general discussion can subscribe to that instead.
> 
> Last calls need wide exposure.
> 
> (I'm acked in at least one RFC as a result of discussion on this list as a result of last call.)
> 
> I'd go further and say that if you're contributing to an ietf workgroup, subscribing to ietf and ietf-announce should be mandatory for posting rights in that group.

The ietf list has 2,155 subscribers, Announce, 3,203 with 915 duplicates, for total unique addresses of 4,442.

Ray


> Sure, you can filter the mails to /dev/null, but getting a broad idea of what's going on is a good thing, no? I'm willing to bet that at least half of our design problems have resulted from people doing narrowly-focused work in only one group or area...
> 
> Lloyd Wood
> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Glen Zorn [[e-mail]]
> Sent: 08 June 2013 07:31
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Best list for IETF last calls [was: Weekly posting summary for     [e-mail]]
> 
> On 06/08/2013 02:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail threads is to change the
>> Subject header when the subject changes. If you don't do that,
>> your mail is rather likely to get junked.
>> 
>> I think that IETF last call threads should stay on the main IETF
>> discussion list. That is exactly the right place for them.
> 
> Since I've requested (read "begged" ;-) for such threads to be moved to
> their own list on several occasions, I disagree again.
> 
>> It's rather trivial to filter them into a dedicated folder;
>> I have one called 'lastcallsin', that also picks up most
>> WG Last Call threads, although those have less standardised
>> subject headers.
> 
> This would appear to work consistently only as long as 'Rule 1' above is
> not followed.
> 
>> 
>>    Brian
>> 
>> On 08/06/2013 06:17, Juliao Braga wrote:
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> Em 07/06/2013 15:09, Ulrich Herberg escreveu:
>>>> I like the idea of a separate list for last calls. It would not solve
>>>> the issue of noise for all of us (and not reduce the overall amount of
>>>> emails), but it would separate general discussions from IETF LCs. I
>>>> have IETF emails filtered by mailing list into different IMAP folders,
>>>> and thus a separation could be useful for me.
>>>> 
>>>> Ulrich
>>>