Re: Stray thoughts on ' Update of IESG statement "Last Call Guidance to the Community"'

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 22/04/2021 23:38, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 4/22/21 6:31 PM, Ofer Inbar wrote:
>
>> Would adding area and WG tags in an email header to the initial
>> announcement to last-call, in a standard format, make it easy enough
>> for people to set up something to alert them to the ones they care
>> about?
>
> I doubt it, because even among IETF participants I'm not sure how many
> people have access to effective configurable mail filtering (without
> changing email providers), or the inclination to learn how to use it.
> But doing that might be a good first step toward making more powerful
> tools available (and/or toward educating people about how to use the
> tools they already have).

One problem that I get is the WG tags being placed in the mail subject 
so that the mail can no longer be collated by subject, contrary to the 
IESG statement - 'Last Call comments should preserve the beginning of 
the original subject header ...'.  A recent thread acquired both [I2NSF] 
and [IPSEC] prior to the original subject - and there is no guarantee 
that they will stay in the same order for subsequent posts and while a 
standard feature of an MUA is to ignore 're:' when sorting, I know of no 
MUA that can be persuaded to ignore [IPSEC] and such like when sorting 
mail by subject.

So no, please remove the WG tags from the Last Call list!

Tom Petch

> Keith
>
>
>
> .
>