Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]

Alessandro Vesely <> Mon, 16 February 2009 11:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDDEB3A6B44 for <>; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:14:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.719
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GlkPUyp7hFyF for <>; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:14:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253693A67E4 for <>; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:14:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5, TLS: TLS1.0, 256bits, RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by with esmtp; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:15:04 +0100 id 00000000005DC036.0000000049994AB8.00001B3B
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:15:04 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:14:59 -0000

John Levine wrote:
>>Despite currently excessive number of comments, I think we should invite 
>>more comments and make it easier, not harder to send them. Even if 
>>traffic on the list is now too high and information content per message 
>>is low, in general our average number of comments in the IETF Last Call 
>>stage is too low.
> The problem isn't sending the comments, it's getting people to read
> drafts, think about them, and offer cogent comments.

It is not clear if you imply that people read more the comments than 
the drafts. However, comments and drafts are not formally linked.

For an example of a different approach, those who commented on the 
GPLv3 draft saw its web interface. Text had different colors according 
to the number of comments related to a given snippet. One could click 
on the text to browse related comments, and possibly answer or add to 

Perhaps, we could send comments to, 
where one can get such token while viewing the draft with a web tool, 
in order to link a comment to a specific section of the relevant 
draft's text. This or similar technique would allow to formally link 
the drafts to their comments, without altering the current work flow. 
More web links to the drafts, e.g. attached to a message while 
removing the opaque token before resending, may result in more draft 

Just a thought.