Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate

Clint Chaplin <> Thu, 12 February 2009 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8629C3A6B58 for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:45:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e6jA71nQLaby for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:45:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075013A6B41 for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id m33so549496wag.5 for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:45:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rxfjg4UYUqRwDV/hLLoR7LqJ1DHcod3od5IP4/rkBrM=; b=UNB5vtDiZYON92o/U2Yb0aXN216J4QAfEYZiJBkPVTA3oqGrFU2Rodq4aESJGO8IID HhcVQuJ3AIIgBlIXOQ29Nid0QG2lkemMtI3nxwvekQ4HPy7xdLjEKxYyeisnY5TX3aZg eblDIpdbsX9GkharhQxDNh1KUoCb7ZSFJ4sbk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=oGHDcXwHPbYTyMXMlfW9oRYJf12MgEkgmwm7gMzH9RbfHX+IEk9ex87O6YTkF5Xj9N hKb8Cm8YCqEdD64eTiuQ4r4DK+1ZvNNjx5Dn+ywlPMsNq3gehg/PS/xaiCrdbosPVDzs +1j1ofWqtxMlV5+gs9GamRGRSMHRxP9Fe18m8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id h1mr627853waa.87.1234482324393; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:45:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:45:24 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate
From: Clint Chaplin <>
To: Noel Chiappa <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:45:20 -0000

Actually, there is a grain of a good idea here that I'd like to extract.

I wouldn't create two places to send comments and attempt to segregate
who can post to which group.  However, creating an email list and asking >all< last call comments
to be sent to that email list has possibilities.

On 2/12/09, Noel Chiappa <> wrote:
> I've heard from a number of the FSF thundering herd people to the effect of
>  'but the announcement says send email to". (They're
>  conveniently ignoring the fact that it says "the IETF community" all over the
>  place in the Last Call, but never mind.)
>  So clearly we need to change it to say something like:
>   Members of the IETF can send email to Members of the public
>   to whom this Last Call is forwarded, you can send email to
>, but we cannot guarantee to do anything with comments
>   at such a late stage in the process. Please join the IETF if you wish to
>   influence standards while the are being worked on; see
><mumble> for instructions on how to do that.
>  (For "Members of the IETF" we can substitute "People who are subscribed to
>  the IETF Discussion list", if people think that is needed in place of the
>  technically somewhat nebulous "Members of the IETF".)
>  And hopefully we can get a few brave souls to volunteer to read ietf-comment,
>  and send on any comments which are novel and or important.
>     Noel
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ietf mailing list

Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Principal Engineer
Corporate Standardization (US)