Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions

Eric Rescorla <> Mon, 16 September 2019 09:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27F0120810 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gYjR4obvfLJV for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 704F6120019 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y23so33050345lje.9 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hg3gwGyYC+grqaqDsTvSln/X4a1gqxXZHZ2cUX86RSs=; b=BdZ4AD8++RHT6575w7k88xz+09axc6iTPQ+sr5OiTOw6tK+rmKhWY/pbA1l9ufXRlg KasW+xeKY+4MZGqB4tvSo0GE39LQHrfD2zKkxttrC5klqsLpMdXAm0o0DCTPH4aH7gSi Lh51x7E0K/SBlmiSY18VCkiGgpCmFgMQW8D5yhIEaTNrWSYtP1ovFTOfARy1ofH+8LqL IzZyXTtaHt6/Y6Lxl0YcbsdyVGEUsu5JoMHMetyQn+2y1HnYm0G6LsgjDLceJGmbrYkl BbKfuKI3TGaDy0xSo+BX5LvzrEjxfy0hJrBmCUcaXD4r/H6Q99/maA0rzM8hYKjNkoVD PAZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hg3gwGyYC+grqaqDsTvSln/X4a1gqxXZHZ2cUX86RSs=; b=T1Hu1z3iYyAnnFiO5ObLCZk71S6gxWncwMzeW8leb8XNRFkgUk6UAd7LCuWb1xEaqF pVYeH29Hd7bLoyVuUDlNMWykYEdzQk0+LkeIsqv4gJ0tjR9VkTRfXGaxzvUinl2kDx4g fuSvLrDCWPLq2/o0PWpfF1ImA0d2r6rhpuOOKO3EhVOJcmXoaQMiNjkrJgwBIg4H0DrV NL8lLYFRBanuRAx89goGpX0kuhqh2UCIty6aw3r2Eidsnh91DMyldW9guv4SSEFZSyvA 47SUf/zdnQTATIouQQ16NoaRlFmrw1uZaYhpmmBbNJqSDXmGGnUf0biQOkIBabAldfrZ Y/Ng==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWNh0mG2oxiQxDNOw5QUIqBUfk4OIMXMzNVOcrSzLM4XiJ4w/eW Bxy/RkodfcVLB13nw6YgV8tmcHimb2QEPzmPcL885Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzB1Kewncn8Ew9JBbvoTEHVjbMkY9eOysSMxDdn68ieum6s/xjDfRexHCSB1/G7WEtMnLFZ2vCuXtBn8XaRjA0=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:878b:: with SMTP id n11mr3652510lji.13.1568626910645; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <EDBBBD9628A18755F4366D0B@PSB> <> <> <> <073FAB7287FB558ECCED2CE0@PSB> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:41:13 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: Melinda Shore <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cb63de0592a869be"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:41:55 -0000

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:28 PM Melinda Shore <>

> On 9/15/19 7:16 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean that WG members need to separately
> > chime in on the IETF list in support or opposition of a document
> No, of course not, but in the event that something becomes
> contested on the ietf@ mailing list, people who've opted out
> but have strong views or particular experience don't participate
> in those discussions.  It's very common for something to get
> through WG last call and then run into problems later in the
> process.
> It is, of course, completely legit not to want to participate
> in those discussions but not participating because someone feels
> they've already had their say, or they don't care about IETF
> consensus, or ... is not quite the same as not participating because
> they find the mailing list intolerable.

I don't think that's what I said, or at least not what I meant to say. If
people who have had their say in the WG subsequently opt not to participate
in the IETF list -- for whatever reason, even if because they find the IETF
list aversive -- that does not mean that their views are not included in
the consensus process.