Re: is last-call working the way the IESG intended?

Lars Eggert <> Mon, 29 March 2021 12:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988F23A0E5A; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 05:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H1o9jdDuzEH4; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 05:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80CCF3A0E59; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 05:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:4da5:a954:5ac7:bb36] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:4da5:a954:5ac7:bb36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B832160031A; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 15:10:46 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=dkim; t=1617019846; bh=uy3cjgKaS+++3db5u4VH3oQCujkYPI/GH9we/IUl4ng=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=bu7GRGINw/JpuoZ6Hd6HNZs9iOHyGQ3US441qWh6T57yPUX6k95e3MCgUm376Cf0K 8cQFcqYeTTunwlhHYLamXQ+mMfKT+PNtp4gZKeVxSpzv7Elxz5CqEyTWBW6Va/g7NK yauJ75smtPhjAyxq+cHLrjyhrNq6QnQM3xxFurHc=
From: Lars Eggert <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3C5CD076-29B5-4896-8441-C96CBF8FD192"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Subject: Re: is last-call working the way the IESG intended?
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 15:10:45 +0300
In-Reply-To: <21848.1615926039@localhost>
Cc: The IESG <>,
To: Michael Richardson <>
References: <> <21848.1615926039@localhost>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
X-MailScanner-ID: B832160031A.A0F45
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
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, 29 Mar 2021 12:11:16 -0000

Hi Michael,

On 2021-3-16, at 22:20, Michael Richardson <> wrote:
> There has been a very long thread on last-call about the crocker draft on
> email emojis.  I'm now seeing the secdir review of
> draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01 and subsequent thread
> related to that.  (Not yet as long as emoji)
> Now, I think that the crocker draft was AD sponsored so maybe it didn't have
> another place for the thread to go.  But, certain draft-ietf-ecrit should
> go back to ecrit list only?

both of these threads were on Last Call reviews, and so the last-call mailing list is an appropriate home for them.

I'll also note that he discussion on draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01 was CC'ed to the ecrit WG, so you could set up your mail filter to move those into your ecrit mail folder instead of the last-call folder, should you prefer that.

> I'm just wondering if last-call is working the way it was imagined it would,
> or if there are some anomalies here.   Should some kind of Reply-To: be enforced?

We discussed this in the IESG, and we believe that the last-call mailing list is working as intended. I'll note that there was a lengthy discussion ( six months after the last-call experiment started that seemed to indicate that the community agrees with that assessment.

Looking back at the mail archives, I noticed that the email establishing the last-call experiment ( suggested two actions in the case that the experiment concluded successfully, which seem to have not been implemented yet:

1. update BCP 45 to formally move the location for last-call discussions (

2. update the 2007 IESG Statement on Last Call Guidance (

I've started an individual draft on the fist item (, and we'll discuss the second item in the IESG.

Lars Eggert
IETF Chair