RE: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate

David Morris <> Fri, 13 February 2009 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3113A69F2 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:15:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.384
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yRdZL4odDc+6 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:15:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754583A6A59 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:15:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix-out) with ESMTP id DE936101834; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:15:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Propel-Return-Path: <>
Received: from ([]) by [] ([]) (port 7027) (Abaca EPG outproxy filter $Rev: 9262 $) id iz6Ur92difg0; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:15:16 -0800
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix-out) with ESMTP id B648210008D; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:15:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1DIFFen016145; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:15:15 -0800
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:15:15 -0800
From: David Morris <>
To: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <>
Subject: RE: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <><> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Propel-ID: iz6Ur92difg0
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: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:15:11 -0000

I think my proposal for an easy way to automatically subscribe to all
last call lists avoids that concern for folks such as yourself who want to 
follow the discussion while providing the operational efficiency of 
collecting all discussion in one place for actual analysis of last call
concensus. Amoung other things, I would expect that when a specific last 
call was out of my range of concern, I could unsubscribe from that 
specific discussion.

I've mentioned last call concensus analysis, but having individual 
archives would help anyone who suddenly discovered a concern to easily
retrieve all related comments.

Dave Morris

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:

>> Note also that e-mails sent to would not be
> sent to the general list of
> I think this is potentially dangerous.  I use the list to
> find out about work that's going on that I wouldn't know to tune into.
> Sometimes the issues presented are not just relevant to the draft being
> discussed, but have some broader community impact.  It is indeed this
> broader community impact that is often decided in an IETF Last Call,
> otherwise we would only have Working Group Last Calls and no IETF Last
> Call...
> - Wes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf Of
> Willie Gillespie
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:34 PM
> To: David Morris
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate
> David Morris wrote:
>> Seems like a unique mailbox per lastcall would be very helpful all
> around.
>> Right now, gathering and evaluating comments must be a nightmare. An
>> alternative, would be a single LC mailbox as suggested, but require
>> EVERY subject line to carry the last call ID, preferable in a form
>> sensible to current mail clients.
>> In the case of unique lists per lastcall, provide an opt-in
>> metasubcribe to make it easy for folks who generally want to follow
>> last call discussions to just be subscribed.
>> *AND* require subscribe to post ... no cute confirm reply to bypass. I
>> strongly believe that anyone who wants to provide feedback should want
>> to see the comments on their feed back. [If the cute confirm created
>> an automatic 48 hour subscription as per my next point, that would
>> work too.]
>> *AND* no unsubscribe or post only for 48 hours after initial
> subscription.
>> For real participants, this wouldn't be an issue and for email
>> campaigns, well they just need to experience the same disrruption
>> their campaign causes.
>> David Morris
> Not a bad idea.  In fact, it may be useful to have a unique "list" per
> draft, so every comment relating to a particular draft can be tracked
> historically.  This example is how I understand your suggestion:
> will automatically be set up with
> the initial ID submission.  E-mails sent to it will be regarded as
> discussion pertaining to the draft.
> Individuals interested in following the draft may subscribe to that list
> simply by sending an e-mail to it.  (However, e-mails with simply the
> word "subscribe" in the body or subject line won't be forwarded to
> everyone.)  They are also allowed to unsubscribe (perhaps following
>  the 48-hour waiting period of initial subscription as David
> suggested).
> Note also that e-mails sent to would not be
> sent to the general list of
> I doubt this sort of functionality currently exists in Mailman, but
> perhaps it could be implemented.
> Willie
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list