Re: Strong objection to draft-ietf-WG-*.all noise levels

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 10 February 2015 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8071A1BCE for <>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:11:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tUnT9E8DI_Pu for <>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C297E1A1BB7 for <>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pdbft15 with SMTP id ft15so41033002pdb.11 for <>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:11:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JQtilLFWVkvK9XVtn4mIUcZlA3SC/cUOWLJOWfpbA88=; b=Ty3M/VyqMtINrLEw+2Sq0XhrpYE/x/StEtCqZBlcomSoWMwAGjfl/6ygwx68NFpjTq k+ERvc8AcoIg55+tibM5cp8SuX1XYAptkvep5VXQzvhciSVWzBmcddoN0lDAf4IppeTf tYtMo7vQFGJYp2kAjuRXz9XMKq++akqud6dFsvSwANPKO89C3iguNXQbdLCIXpESnb25 uI4ZgiOhE1NUUSXtgLtyo0PeT3kQwUFnHlyFb6CYq+mYQZY+9y0KOnBPrdL6Xn1GDFnC Xpc/f+iEQ/7VqKVVQ9sERzIelovDCaUEorWDLX0KRlaiRAQ3B8Hm5NKw5jodiMQBCCm3 9qjQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id xw5mr40061747pbc.34.1423595478500; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6492:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6492:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id i3sm20132736pdf.39.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:11:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:11:18 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "t.p." <>, Pete Resnick <>, Robert Sparks <>
Subject: Re: Strong objection to draft-ietf-WG-*.all noise levels
References: <> <> <> <011a01d0451a$94cd67a0$>
In-Reply-To: <011a01d0451a$94cd67a0$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:11:21 -0000


On 10/02/2015 23:16, t.p. wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Resnick" <>;
> To: "Robert Sparks" <>;
> Cc: <>;
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 10:49 PM
>> On 2/9/15 2:11 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>> I _think_ the conversation you need to be having to address your
>>> objection is with the IESG on the decision to add the group to the
>>> default notification list.
>> That's fair. Speaking as one of the folks involved in the change:
>> The IESG, in part at the behest of the community, wanted to (by
> default)
>> make sure that IESG ballots were copied to the WG mailing list instead
>> of being a private conversation between the authors, the chairs, and
> the
>> IESG, invisible to anyone else in the community. Seeing the ballots
> can
>> always be turned off on a case-by-case basis, but it seemed better to
>> have that as default instead of having to remember to turn it on on a
>> case-by-case basis.
> I think that the workings of the IETF are much improved by being better
> informed as to what the IESG is doing and when.  

At a macro level, yes. But the tracker (quite correctly) logs all kinds
of trivial state changes that really are noise to most people most of the
time. Those shouldn't be broadcast.

> I note too that what I
> see varies by WG so someone, WG Chair or AD, is doing something
> selective in this area. I prefer to be told - I can always delete the
> e-mail which, given the structure of the IETF WGs, is something I have
> to do a lot of anyway.

Sure - if the messages are sent (not BCC) to the WG list that is
relatively painless. Robert assures us that will be the case, which
will definitely help. But the trivia should be narrowcast.

> I am rarely interested in everything a WG
> takes up, sometimes only a third of the adopted I-Ds (apps-discuss and
> v6ops come to mind as having a particularly broad palette).  One or two
> more deletions is neither here nor there (and sometimes it also serves
> as a 'keepalive' on a quiet WG list -  saves me checking the archives to
> see if I have been unwittingly unsubscribed :-).

The problem isn't on the quiet lists...

I would quite like to be able to "subscribe" to receive updates on a specific
draft rather than on every draft in the WG. But maybe that is a feature request
too far.