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

Eric Rescorla <> Fri, 13 September 2019 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBDE120116 for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Jkv3YJXTcDSc for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3699D1200FF for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c195so8164013lfg.9 for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=b3BojbkHnt3+IDlHZJTjqYo/JEyIHc3gt4r9i5ebds4=; b=0vVfM94x+2X0ZviFMa17hkGAcb2qY2kWidRXJENbcTb8sK/BJC7o5ernjFDodLO/I3 WAB4Zztm9LOGo3urzNYMz9I35vniErFRJ9EjWeB79bIhZhqL8GMYZA6nkD4ffCjzMbt+ Ddxz++bLI3eCCqkjBid+eaUr0YpXgeo2MbR/cU5m+231m5G5rt9fVUgDizxOJ6yZTwul y9MtktEopxt/MPrjGW3TwsyL3Aa6GWV1FwgUA1MsIage47BdsyQVVf+V5jAnD7ZA6dAu l0HhgTGU0L4oziPcp71MyQ8MimWRNeaRS78A7hEWazuXdsJi253A4k+bWAvN7eM/VKSv Q/Bw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b3BojbkHnt3+IDlHZJTjqYo/JEyIHc3gt4r9i5ebds4=; b=fDe+0PSlpnOnUBXz3Lb7LikQ3+i+91VQa1vf1nYW+hCtsyJkkY4QLk2x2NseZlR3ej 4wL1kRKZsaVXRpJJHeRfzSd7qRa7XPvsh4Ya0TfqF48DUhM+8FOny7quWq/KSat+sX2f GUzLEtXAJ3yAND1D8LDkoQIHkF8Hrf3s4McYV6OrVsR6enB3wHZJ00zoNDby/HRlPiWw 5b3loHfaMWKhGiIvbExvsblu6pMZSfoEIDNJRLXGIea5tfSsppDGqi/C7hIk2O0nGyW9 AYnJtNfSU8ERBH1826Ku1NcmFYTd04LShUJQbh664HaKFAicmadJYisUiqXLHvPZZxKg ab+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWWURJyO3gyfJbQzmlzyAd5rWLp/gew2o8eB6BkJHP121NHZwpi bKTanSLkEyluzKje0cvVeKSH/bAs9rqazRNJOzH3pg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxsdJbfwR1m6q2eR9ShClUPh3lFzRP8X1tHaioZIckWsEQc7YWj7kgoYFdDqhR8AfKwBIR+RPBqLlIfAlwRFoA=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5a19:: with SMTP id q25mr9159755lfn.178.1568405418306; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <EDBBBD9628A18755F4366D0B@PSB> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:09:42 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: Bob Hinden <>
Cc: Barry Leiba <>, IETF <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d28054059274d759"
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: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 20:10:22 -0000

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:07 AM Bob Hinden <> wrote:

> Hi Barry,
> I have read thought the discussion and have a few questions.
> As I understand the proposal, the intent is to have the two lists
> initially have the same membership.  As you said:
>    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 the initial list creation, will new people be required to subscribe
> to each list separately, or will subscribing to the list
> also cause a subscription to the last-call@ietf list?   I think this is
> an important issue as the value of each list is that there is a broad
> representation of people from the IETF community.
> Is it a desirable outcome if the lists become very different in
> membership?   If the list becomes a lot smaller, is this a
> good outcome of the experiment, or a bad outcome?
> I am thinking that both lists should have the same membership, that is,
> one can’t unsubscribe from only one. This would preserve the broad
> community review of last calls and for community discussions, but still
> allow separate discussions.

I disagree with this. Part of the value proposition here is to allow people
to engage with last calls and avoid the... unpleasantness... which is the
ietf@ list.


> How are we to evaluate the experiment?   I have have no doubt that it will
> achieve the goal of keeping the discussions separate.  I think we should be
> defining other criteria in which to evaluate the results of the experiment.
> Also, a related question, how do new IETF participants know to subscribe
> to the IETF list these days?   Do we have any way of knowing if current
> active IETF participants are subscribed?   Perhaps, when registering for a
> meeting, the registration tool could offer to subscribe to the
> and lists.
> Thanks,
> Bob