Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 13 February 2009 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F9A3A6C05 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:00:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id unCiwK7mcSXu for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:00:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.191]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA603A69DC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:00:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 11so929633tim.25 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:00:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7Zj/9NWexj66GiMYgQiY5xna2wuyX+6SZJZxqhJ7MgI=; b=ai3QEaiGDVfZNYScxJvVGb55aCbah5rAeTg/luPQJhfVvRKN1TQwwj7yRy79IZJXRy 5oIFUW8iJrdFntQGhpHBTbK529ZS55R6CcULnSOCyCORTS0Y0nG9vcmoEEkTUheSU0Dj ZDdby+WJUyD6lphAP+BfnGNgf+sgSg0l6SQQo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=AD+OFVoafBXtjUKyZ4lClVGroMAZ5WUEEIBVSu1UPPr0W0ZFbRoBMh8miqn6gspx+6 8JI2c2Nbtb25ELx9KoPd7/Y5gmGCT4YhJz/97FB6nPWt7PqI9OaXkVHt01NEmSX9p2Hw Tr87YuUmVBl0YB4oIdTPu/2ULT7wGbAc205kI=
Received: by 10.110.49.6 with SMTP id w6mr4019886tiw.39.1234555254584; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:00:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?10.1.1.4? (118-93-72-216.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz [118.93.72.216]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j5sm1759035tid.1.2009.02.13.12.00.51 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4995D171.8080501@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 09:00:49 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Henk Uijterwaal <henk@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
References: <49952C21.3070607@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <49952C21.3070607@ripe.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 13 Feb 2009 20:00:56 -0000

On 2009-02-13 21:15, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
> 
> Noel Chiappa wrote:
> 
> (Discussion deleted)
> 
>> I think these (and the per-draft mailboxes others have mentioned) are
>> probably
>> all steps in a long-term plan, with the eventual optimum system being the
>> web-based thing you mention.
> 
> What is exactly the problem we're trying to solve here?

Henk, at least in my mind it is *not* solving the outlier case of
an organised mail bombing; pretty much any solution that remains
in the IETF spirit of openness will be subject to some kind of bombing
(and probably should be, if we're serious about being an open
[dis]organisation).

In my mind the problem is how to collect and classify all the comments
on a given draft, so that the authors, the WG, the IESG, and anyone
else who needs to, can review them all. Being able to do that easily
would be a significant benefit for the efficiency of document review.
and would help make our process more transparent.

> I think most of us like to see LC comments related to the drafts that
> they are somehow involved with (author, WG participant, etc).  Posting
> those comments to the ietf list takes care of that, without work or
> effort from anybody.

Not so, if people disrespect the request to retain the subject header
of the Last Call message. I assure you from my time on the IESG, when
I was supposed to have an opinion about the consensus from every
Last Call, that the lack of fully automatic sorting of comments
was a major pain. It's even worse when the IESG or IAB needs to
review a document's history because of an appeal.

> Most of the 250+ drafts that go last call every year, generate no
> comments on the list.  

And that's a problem in itself.

> The TLS draft is an exception with 100's of
> replies.  However, I cannot remember any similar cases in the last
> 10 years.  Pressing delete 100 times worked for me, that is a few
> minutes of work in a 10 year period, in other words no work at all.

I agree completely; it's not the main problem.

> 
> Do we really want to introduce all kinds of complex procedures just
> based on one incident?

No... as explained above.

    Brian