IETF Logo Mail Archive

is last-call working the way the IESG intended?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 16 March 2021 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 A40E53A0C0C; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 72qOCovf3fy2; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AD183A0C05; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CECB5389A6; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:26:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id oUc0O7XoO-Z1; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:26:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BE5B389A4; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:26:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEC3D5; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:20:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: iesg@ietf.org
CC: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: is last-call working the way the IESG intended?
In-Reply-To: <161591246412.5771.17798271339560020312@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <161591246412.5771.17798271339560020312@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:20:39 -0400
Message-ID: <21848.1615926039@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/K4Gf9FN9RCfTbetVCjY6bp9gkC8>
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 20:20:45 -0000

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?


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email