Re: Redundant email floods

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2014, at 16:48, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Can something be done about it?
>
> I have wondered whether there should be a field in the submit interface where the authors can say why this new version is being submitted.  That could then be the most prominent part of the I-D announce

Whoh. I'd never thought of that, but what a great idea. IMO this
should be an optional field, but I'd love the ability to add in a:
"Integrated Bob's comments, protocol now supports foo if bar is
negotiated. Also fixes spelling mistakes and clarifies section 3.2.4"

This would be useful, both as an author (I already try add stuff like
that to the "Author's Changelist" section of drafts), and even more so
for reviewers / readers.
I've often gotten notice that some draft has been updated, and I
intend to go read it, but quickly lose the will to continue after I
realize I have no idea what's different. The "diffs" links help some,
but often there are many unsubstantive changes that clutter up the
view. Also, a posting summary that says:
"Removed all security options and privacy stuff. Also added IPR
encumbered technology X. Fixed 300 occurrences typing "definetly"
instead of "definitely" will get me to read the update, but I think I
can safely skip:
"Fixed 300 occurrences typing "definetly" instead of "definitely",
renamed bit 7 of Encapsulation Option filed from 'Fast' to 'Express'"

W

>  and would obviate at least one additional message.  (With that, potentially there should be an option to have the I-D announce sent to one WG, for an individual draft, too.)
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf