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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 16 March 2021 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 7610E3A0D5C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 uc2rqOjEgAgf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x433.google.com (mail-pf1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) (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 6556B3A0D58 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x433.google.com with SMTP id x7so9643561pfi.7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+Tdq/qvApqsP0bs6mUywJMWblrOW1fwnOztftgEiSKw=; b=Y/BqljNh5fFdWs9R6onx9G2k7FdHz+qyNkOuzGqvVeO64D0wBTyK+p9JtaEZlJ5Hvz DGt7UtR597Pbwp1fBEFdrk8UdZtFGprt6m4JFTzB7y8pMTSxexfx6a8rOWbqb6d1IAOZ brme2QwXZEcvhoRJyQOTY0WcRwYcq4oLL0ij3AMU5KcPOlz6REsysKMa6aUVv31CVonV Iel8S3qTsEUNlnUhHs/MZUNIdEnRYMys/FWMgvVi5bL00MrVsRMOBo1jKGxONpwlijRn wI5ihlsYR117HzHYp7iUC7t+i/7kW9VeMHE7AU8w07M2SALyMW/JjNXWSRm8tAiWq5Aa 3/Sg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+Tdq/qvApqsP0bs6mUywJMWblrOW1fwnOztftgEiSKw=; b=p/7AQY8uZv6kRcXBzCWtuVANOPXnvprjyCrL/YRTktcDUlrL8tRaYIf/KcFWifVSix wn2Xfzsw7RrxCfTd/7vQRBPw9erFoR5RohGm01yV2FZ0l/xdjctMpl9yACXxjtYI2d2R Dg6G5lt4yNI+dgI+MuRJ0sSiz9B6k34VXX7J8NRFwvAH+GUgCqkGIw5tYa1VJz3hPaiB uKsw7fSkwSZBXfT+gtBrr1zH1gEHVSnr4l9SJUZJiPkYDvWrwDIMD1nqhzEUyb0YZc2T gX2xMrQFk8lknQ9qBcCYY8/2pIvkTbsjFn6OsRylXODVPAcA2QOa9cXr0J1zcRA1dAQ6 DB4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533hBav12AKUdWPHmHriMpy/cDOZ6QTkdVSBNsdk+7bpN8HysgP0 pQO8AcbJJmP8KouQEdDc5luEV2cev+jo7NWa
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx9grUyFnzZW9pM14uxO7N6XufsSDkQbqms7PQ+N1a2MZNA3BJeel8iZrsX6qiwocWKPPK9Pw==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:99c4:0:b029:1f6:c0bf:43d1 with SMTP id v4-20020aa799c40000b02901f6c0bf43d1mr1081855pfi.37.1615927596545; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j22sm271656pjz.3.2021.03.16.13.46.34 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: is last-call working the way the IESG intended?
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <161591246412.5771.17798271339560020312@ietfa.amsl.com> <21848.1615926039@localhost>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21c2c301-198a-b457-849f-034df7b739d7@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:46:33 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <21848.1615926039@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IAJeWVKgm0-vNx4bRVEboVYUkL0>
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: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 20:46:40 -0000

On 17-Mar-21 09:20, 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?
> 
> 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?

The WG should certainly be CCed but the whole point of IETF LC is to expose
the draft to the whole IETF to look for gotchas. So no, I don't see a problem.
Email is cheap, and easy to delete unread.

But... I do sort all last call traffic into a dedicated inbox, which makes
ignoring it very easy. This morning I see 13 unread messages in that inbox.
[pause]
It took me about 90 seconds to clear that inbox. Ten of the messages were
about drafts of no interest to me - deleted. One  was a reply to my own
comment on a particular draft - read & saved. Two others were trivia about
the same draft - deleted. It took longer to write this message than to clear
that inbox. So I still don't see a problem.

    Brian