Re: Redundant email floods

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Fri, 19 December 2014 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8CA1A8932 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:31:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 0s0MINW8p3J9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:31:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com (mail-wg0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93EBE1A88C5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:31:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id x13so1780405wgg.19 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:31:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0g7VWTpckqu8sg9763ZEyD6CIK3pyRZt41uPTUG3bvk=; b=DU7MbDVXpTDKHMXw0EoerbjgLWDoE3fQ8+SQ/92Kg+4VS5g3qAJ+hUZmzdT5ybHrUY EWoOp/LjYv30zHzL7aWvxBb0ISfmI2Vp07m+Lg6ph92xeEjTDQyhZYCnxubnx8HhIb0X 8fANJUukcHKxiNTBtIFLWx3Je5iavLSDXqiz8WPRgNJG/AHMhjxFiIsoCFfcPeM/XrKq sJjw8eqnoXkenRx+UO7H+LUUUGp8XDhTvsJmzQe46xpBMr3PoW6JMf0pypoFZ1b6SnOj qIe/e98tMxgUuCrsex6lirD2WSYUJAJ+Mq1ZewiL0+2O510OgypGI2VKt9mRS/yrs6y1 PsrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkcui+NH5OcFh71TOTWywMST9OwFMbURxt3oybJIvB4atfc2EZAgPidZpaCyZB8SyOIKu4p
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.198.164 with SMTP id jd4mr7321859wic.42.1419006708248; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:31:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.64.37 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:31:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <31B4F2EF-0891-4110-8D17-B3A2019E59B0@tzi.org>
References: <5C9D9BE3E2E657BAD5F7C6C4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <31B4F2EF-0891-4110-8D17-B3A2019E59B0@tzi.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:31:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iL5ajT1ZFad_s_A_T+fCuDp+Qy87HyOr765aZWxVYzkvw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Redundant email floods
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GGrp1wyrgqWE3RWcp6t81xvy-mk
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "ietf@ietf.org Disgust" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:31:54 -0000

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2014, at 16:48, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> 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