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

Barry Leiba <> Thu, 12 September 2019 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F1E120137 for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.026, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6PDueK4GZ6Hu for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74FC1120131 for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j4so56074243iog.11 for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=T7YSIcWxfh/mYtorA+cCHYMNpUEHmJ5DlYOv6SKFB30=; b=ncHH8qdGO5dPW5iIU1MDzfehg7ZxtyUZqJ4ZE7Eu8nzXuMkdxWj1YBJ726Qb1r6MYO RMzS9Yb5ZRTbHySF0DNkH56Scbk6u4qmabmhnAqsu7xq7mS2sKmDx8jAJFkwuZaoylaJ FFHLPQl0W0xnRMuGDZ8yt11wz3sIKuJ4wSwTKbFtOWWoB4i2J9Ec3ZOJlDWXV1kK8K7l eAWyRhm0WulBiXcYfVtyOGotHBqQtuABk58as9h/uO276eZFA+RYCy9J9E+piUBC80bW AIca+2WC1DA5w8CsmLfqzc2BvBHYx6vM3wf4MvkvEcsYKEXP5PUM4Oj7Q48v8H01hrGk 471g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWH1wlI7e7pFD6D8neXEIxt8tpjb9n9f7x9/cPqxYaLHq4+4NvR 4nJ5wihjVYjQVtx0D3qWZDK3ZaAUgqh+5Wl3wbTijJ7J
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz6kKLhXltifmVJh5Z/hBk7aNwSiE4W0Jm6EeyDPXkIJhTHfGV9OROJI/qAv6NFChOpadC0WzFsBcvZdWHvums=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7709:: with SMTP id n9mr4700184iom.187.1568304853412; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 12:14:01 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 16:14:16 -0000

As we discussed in the plenary session at IETF 105 in Montréal, some
community members have suggested moving document last-call discussions
onto a dedicated "last-call" mailing list, and off of the general
<> list.  The latter is a high-volume list with a lot of
varied discussion, and some think that it would be useful to separate
the general discussion from the last-call discussion, to allow people
to choose which discussions (or both) to follow.  In the IETF 105
plenary, support was expressed for that separation.

The IESG agrees, and wants to try an experiment to that end.  We
propose to create <> and to direct last-call
comments and discussions there (the last-call announcements would
still go to <>, with "reply-to" set to the new
list).  That list would be monitored by volunteers recruited by the
IETF Chair, and digressions would be nudged back to <>,
while we would ask people having last-call discussions on this list to
please move them to the new list.  We would get the tools team
involved so that the distribution lists for directorate and
review-team reviews would be updated appropriately.

Our plan is to create the new list and pre-subscribe everyone who is
subscribed to <> at that time.  Of course, anyone could
unsubscribe to either or both lists immediately or later, but we think
that doing it this way would minimize the likelihood that people would
miss important stuff because of the move, and folks can choose what
they prefer from there.

After six months, we would do an initial evaluation, including getting
feedback from the community, to see how the experiment is working.  If
it seems worth continuing we would do so, and at a point that the
community decides that the experiment is a success (should it so
decide), we would start an update to BCP 45 to formally move the
location for last-call discussions, and we would update the 2007 IESG
Statement on Last Call Guidance.

We invite comments, here, on this plan, by the end of September. As I
say above, we've heard support from the community for the general
idea, and we'd like to make sure this direction is what the community

Barry, for the IESG