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

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Mon, 16 September 2019 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5671200B7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yqvunj2k5RRn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A41791200C5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id k5so1666178iol.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=X5kQ0sFCpdFano8IAyBQvOuaCkZY0RB9Jjas+AuzRqk=; b=ccB0FJQmBXQMwv8TnZbSGOyr1UZb7WUCdZu99Y5ehXfIUMpgk/VrJLFz+zVU9I+yqQ Tw5+hNxrRny6TnhxbuxJqORCkm3xE0LnN/ZmNqvB6bZm3Tu27jddB7orSvbwlGUAODbu y0MbKex4khSq3OQxfMEP9xFvQsBelGMAeYeAY3HHwg0AI99LFblTvD5Gkl+YseV19bHy gM9ds91JoJQMk6T30DjVwHESasVq2SW1lPodGcFR3kGkB1G0M1TWDHXgMPeOO+417YC3 to2SikbrwgscXfE/0eMK6gxH+xZAXgtCsxbSD3OJnl2MRjbNBLTwfmiSQfCYNGf7yNs3 QrBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=X5kQ0sFCpdFano8IAyBQvOuaCkZY0RB9Jjas+AuzRqk=; b=N5s4CH9lUpdgUH9SWaHKvDtv5plgSJe6jl8yNMfxJCoLCYw0bksKD0duH9AWXqTe90 /JcLRmNGLw3YKxgXPsIH7BjPxKxg0GTE1ENwtsNbFb30UZHHBBaPfUJNIJiAzo6zEXJD zkGafIFVJcwi//8+xjb8OpuVIEdr/X8tLSPMylZUlZ4aRio0WfUhsSGtZYssJWw53WmI yXvrwQIHAo9254gCl5v89X6sjl70Cg+bAVdMlHGuwXzTk93rqblBMe+TSVw5q+BjeyWq nogU1VbIqQSbrnGNkvD/BB1F9gYhcqsfoQy9tw0YmeGfUafL+QwKNGQoRvMIYoMbicnC pc+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUery5oRZeRQ0bfFIvQi7/dC92lwqtkpcLTI6BVs66FRvhjP+yA EkOrioMsaYwU9WYAlx1Ls8bxUhv2Lp+178pKw3M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxbD/le/TrAIDViQxFLtrW0Li7hwbMgI0IQB8xI0VJhzfwKcICTn9OrZuQ/hqTT5ZD73NqtU0dSICe+eDjCHYU=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8f43:: with SMTP id x3mr503290iop.257.1568660964810; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F81AE7E530D4651A0806B087@PSB> <CALaySJL8zcbdue0+HpRQ0jE0HKNxuAkK6B+HZvsjyjc4vskOVg@mail.gmail.com> <1078feb8-3aa8-de88-4b90-67666dfeb99f@gmx.de> <695F3A82D6E185E45D5D1344@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <695F3A82D6E185E45D5D1344@PSB>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:09:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAChr6SxojreiLndvtmzLEvT8dGzdqJgxnfymkJ1BorM-EghW3w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000094a5f20592b05749"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CmNC6bfRZhISwaAba2pBTVB9a0I>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:09:33 -0000

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:46 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>; wrote:

>
> This is a serious question despite the way I'm about to ask it,
> but, if we successfully did a split on that basis, wouldn't that
> leave us an "IEFF Last Call" list and an "IETF Noise and
> Whining" list?   It also suggests something else: would it make
> sense to do a three-way split:
>

I think this raises a good point, but I would modify the solution based on
the current list description.

1) "It furthers the development and specification of Internet technology
through discussion of technical issues"


>  * IETF Last Calls on technical specifications (including
>         technical A/S documents)
>

2) "it hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, and procedures"


>  * IETF Last Calls on procedural specifications (as
>         recent examples, that would include all of the
>         anti-harassment documents, all of the IASA2 work, and
>         any documents that arise out of the recent discussions
>         about recalls and recall eligibility)
>
>  * Everything else
>

So, I think there is an argument for keeping procedural RFCs and
"everything else" on ietf@ietf.org. I'm not sure how easy it would be to do
that.

I do think email provides a nice escape hatch if there's an edge case where
it's not clear which list is best: CC both lists. Hopefully, that will be
rare.

thanks,
Rob