Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs

Brian E Carpenter <> Wed, 26 February 2020 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3C03A1396; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:26:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 z_Kwmx3xfOhn; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:26:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC46F3A1393; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:26:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 4so336527pfz.9; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:26:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ig0OnjDIhUvpyV6ODDEHB22UQ5wqOIWnTjUoi7iz8QA=; b=LFy+E1nG+LvIVGOXS0ZaRjkfI1605qlES1XNaU7CiLFpXq5LXaL2g+ZdU8Ddr/3GVH /obx2W/BkQV9OKqCL//TqfJHcC1iNHavcIYYV2kxZWqXSynwcH6GUbhyIVvofWt6/3X1 Zh82IPW+DPKm8uQN8zS5PXTjGmFjLxu7KHlJZHVIpc9efTlzgEQnVwx1XtpMTzHKi9GO 75MdujiVsZAnPxrBfVFywqSjW479wTgQDU4SCqdNTwF3gUSJ69WMJ/rvJnFGM4hQm/z6 eKze/s1qpBe0FEjXXxdbJyIZCnCDkHLepmat1W+YHNy0plKpafpURurWzcoADmifPXyO PgaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ig0OnjDIhUvpyV6ODDEHB22UQ5wqOIWnTjUoi7iz8QA=; b=F+T3UAnF+BHXesRO1RS9xBlDbeExD42QwaaYcaC1SmgtmJoBGpEMGB/CG0pehJwtBG 2c6Ig84qPMy+ZJozUT39tDxqRhV6HExPc+efnrqQtoet4KeQ4tkDtDAI+BSNimwQUP+/ dT1EyBOsG7+E2/Ncxm4yCtHoQw+PwANT9geGRi5bwRI8YCykIIbv4mkKmYubgJaERRNT 0rj5X1NT8KJr+hH6+jHZNchl6Grt21Aq0CAmJJTkMOvprNBo/c/aRwMgAgsPXGGpJzZS mLSnCe1DCm7AniOV5zkD4CruOzUKpGM0rDijHZNHePrsjK+XLBuyQJuTCIIBrJJUCedp GqCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWh9qfXr+n8LnnUk/K/2VALk0Ne5Zw9gFfjOoiJsLBUsSfjq9bB YeKXOId4rHWHejQb7NYPVMYxaeEY
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwFiSn+i+PtkiHMYKwAySPMZ1Jg/iK0wSEEMKz1e+ofD2cEAEIEhaZr5QwI3UJGAebHcTh9bQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:1b4f:: with SMTP id b76mr440366pfb.163.1582748766885; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id q25sm4071301pfg.41.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs
To: IETF Executive Director <>
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 09:26:03 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:26:09 -0000


My understanding has always been that every active IETF participant needs to subscribe
to ietf-announce because that (and only that) conveys what every participant needs
to know, and doesn't convey anything that is optional to know. Things like
- Last Calls
- WG charters for comment
- IESG decisions
- RFC publications
- Meeting announcements
- NomCom announcements
- "other announcements of interest to the IETF community"

All other mailing lists are optional.

I think that significant actions by IETF LLC belong there too. People need to
know about these even if it makes them yawn. John Klensin gave some reasons
why; my reason is one word: transparency.

Clearly, people who are potential bidders will be happy to join the dedicated list,
so the message to the ietf-announce list could be minimal.

Subject: RFP for IETF Cookie services
Body: IETF-LLC has published a Request for Proposals. Please see for details.


On 26-Feb-20 18:22, Jay Daley wrote:
> Brian 
> (sent from my
>> On 26/02/2020, at 4:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
>> Hi Jay,
>> I fully understand the arguments for this change. However, I think it would be good to continue to send a *summary* of the CFP messages to ietf-announce, for community awareness. Ditto for the "Award of contract" messages.
> Those are two of the three types of RFP message sent to IETF-announce and coincidentally two of the three types planned for rfp-announce (the third one being “Here’s the Q&A for this RFP”).  In other words, I don’t want rfp-announce to grow on volume. 
> It would useful for me to understand why subscribing to rfp-announce is not an option?  In the context of the IETF’s high usage of mailing lists, this seems like a particularly low barrier to entry. 
> Jay