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

John C Klensin <> Mon, 16 September 2019 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1542412010C for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8gkAi4sA0O04 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2DFF1200B1 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1i9x6j-000MP5-2I; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 15:56:21 -0400
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 15:56:14 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Rob Sayre <>
cc: Julian Reschke <>, Barry Leiba <>, Bob Hinden <>, IETF <>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
Message-ID: <FF5AA683C551B936577EFE11@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <F81AE7E530D4651A0806B087@PSB> <> <> <695F3A82D6E185E45D5D1344@PSB> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:56:27 -0000

--On Monday, September 16, 2019 14:09 -0500 Rob Sayre
<> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:46 AM John C Klensin
> <> 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 I'm not sure how easy
> it would be to do that.

Actually, Rob, what I think I've observed is that the really
long, tedious, threads on which many people have opinions and
feel a need to express them multiple times are typically about
procedural issues, with many, if not most, derived from
documents in Last Call.  So maybe three lists rather than two or
maybe we should push the procedural and administrative
discussions off into an "ietf-procedures" list and keep the
technical discussions and Last Calls on the IETF one.  

And I told someone who wrote me off-list, I'm not sure the above
is a serious suggestion, but it is another way in which I think
we should be thinking clearly about what we are doing and its

> 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.

Prior experience suggests that it often leads to parallel
discussions that don't quite synchronize as some people post to
one list, some to the other, and some to both.