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

Melinda Shore <> Mon, 16 September 2019 03:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C948120105 for <>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jcLZ2mu3reHL for <>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B51EE12008D for <>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 205so22072602pfw.2 for <>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Hqb51q5Hd568U6eVIDf1dNw+3hqFZTbw+YcmLS60dqk=; b=eBgz+aocamvBV21tQKEF88na9C8nxCJz2cEt3AX7aBEj18yy09gg8vQIP269pgJ8e0 ouwZKgzx1ykqV8is/+b7QV/B37fY7MZtJHNamvBzy255qzWXqOcAk2NRKiVgvpSjUuhi mLWAPLE3wLsC6n6sXoZzCx/pyFCG4eEHl5z7dEbfYEJvVULfIn2SVkkq98HUFGLQPj8B raEfsJFSRiDNo/Cx5VvXwcDl1H4VU7ndM5a9LJEhsse84qx8pN4LigSHsgxUsRHjTuxj OcgsNcVo2hofdifDWtB2iTFWSyABedlTDj6FFKAkcILOWTmgv9GbYNTc3YdQJsAjAf44 8avQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Hqb51q5Hd568U6eVIDf1dNw+3hqFZTbw+YcmLS60dqk=; b=YOxuOdnGXBKj3QnjuOyf/Pw7EmeqXQHxOUiJslOZav38eWCqk3+g2hg/29A73ZriqK XmPg0+l2X69xJBJab443Bwygc+3MTOF2GtUWUY8FwLypawRR4Nev+n+0GQWJyhjbAAgq FdzSqCHLxJZ8/Fu3l7jnXDN3/sJKn45cN5zpdQK4oO23auEWjIOYB8bLH9zo4DaF+YVI ylxgDpXc3cC/Y4A3Grqri4T7RGbvjtGPiBQiC4ArotBlRlA6FQWprLCqSOWlMWTg0INa uX3eoF99svHEM6QZNKU5OsaOERwPxWMp5gnFGEkUS9Y5WLbRvSNAjy1PpP9NFsA+K1zs al4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVdVaRcKYdTm8MMwD9US/0d2GELXEYzYUQYNil/8jtvw+UyCoFE L3f59XZ6GJBtnNHp2OiIidl3i4YZ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyS0ueKscjmERK8wlSC+rZXeEo0n4ygAqE//yUZR/GYy5toa7T96Sy0sQsLx82rO9hK44S4nA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:e812:: with SMTP id s18mr9816176pgh.291.1568604483536; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aspen.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v18sm14353199pff.32.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: Eric Rescorla <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
References: <> <EDBBBD9628A18755F4366D0B@PSB> <> <> <> <073FAB7287FB558ECCED2CE0@PSB> <> <> <>
From: Melinda Shore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:28:01 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 03:28:06 -0000

On 9/15/19 7:16 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean that WG members need to separately
> chime in on the IETF list in support or opposition of a document

No, of course not, but in the event that something becomes
contested on the ietf@ mailing list, people who've opted out
but have strong views or particular experience don't participate
in those discussions.  It's very common for something to get
through WG last call and then run into problems later in the

It is, of course, completely legit not to want to participate
in those discussions but not participating because someone feels
they've already had their say, or they don't care about IETF
consensus, or ... is not quite the same as not participating because
they find the mailing list intolerable.

There are myriad little ways in which we end up inadvertently
excluding input based on criteria that don't have much to do
with technical chops.  This is one of them.  It may be a price
we're willing to pay in order to have free-ranging and
unfettered discussions but we've never really made that


Melinda Shore

Software longa, hardware brevis