Re: Strong objection to draft-ietf-WG-*.all noise levels

t.p. <> Wed, 11 February 2015 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F2221A87B2 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:53:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RNrBZXfHV9-E for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:53:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::765]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE7F91A871B for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:53:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pc6 ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:53:13 +0000
Message-ID: <012d01d045e0$51ab0e20$>
From: t.p. <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, Pete Resnick <>
References: <> <> <> <011a01d0451a$94cd67a0$> <>
Subject: Re: Strong objection to draft-ietf-WG-*.all noise levels
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:28:45 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: []
X-ClientProxiedBy: ( To (
Authentication-Results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AM3PR07MB243;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004); SRVR:AM3PR07MB243;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0484063412
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51704005)(24454002)(13464003)(479174004)(377454003)(122386002)(33646002)(62966003)(77156002)(66066001)(46102003)(87976001)(19580395003)(86362001)(50466002)(19580405001)(1456003)(47776003)(44716002)(77096005)(23676002)(42186005)(116806002)(50226001)(44736004)(14496001)(230783001)(61296003)(92566002)(93886004)(81686999)(81816999)(76176999)(50986999)(74416001)(7726001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM3PR07MB243; H:pc6; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AM3PR07MB243;
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2015 09:53:13.4637 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM3PR07MB243
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:53:33 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <>
To: "t.p." <>om>; "Pete Resnick"
<>om>; "Robert Sparks" <>
Cc: "ietf" <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:11 PM
> Tom,
> On 10/02/2015 23:16, t.p. wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pete Resnick" <>
> > To: "Robert Sparks" <>
> > Cc: <>
> > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 10:49 PM
> >> On 2/9/15 2:11 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> >>> I _think_ the conversation you need to be having to address your
> >>> objection is with the IESG on the decision to add the group to the
> >>> default notification list.
> >>
> >> That's fair. Speaking as one of the folks involved in the change:
> >>
> >> The IESG, in part at the behest of the community, wanted to (by
> > default)
> >> make sure that IESG ballots were copied to the WG mailing list
> >> of being a private conversation between the authors, the chairs,
> > the
> >> IESG, invisible to anyone else in the community. Seeing the ballots
> > can
> >> always be turned off on a case-by-case basis, but it seemed better
> >> have that as default instead of having to remember to turn it on on
> >> case-by-case basis.
> >
> > I think that the workings of the IETF are much improved by being
> > informed as to what the IESG is doing and when.
> At a macro level, yes. But the tracker (quite correctly) logs all
> of trivial state changes that really are noise to most people most of
> time. Those shouldn't be broadcast.


I think that this needs taking down to specifics.  In the good old days,
we would have a period of months or years of silence, during which
something may or may not be happening (like waiting on a Normative
Reference).  Now I see progress reports which as neither an editor nor
chair nor shepherd nor AD nor anything except a subscriber to a WG list
I would never see.  (I suspect that as the editor of many I-Ds you will
be being kept up-to-date via different channels).

The only post I would regard as redundant is the one about a new
version, which sometimes comes twice, but then not always.  Some WG
chairs/ADs are very tight about what they allow those on the list to be
allowed to know (without, that is, the hassle of going onto the ever
harder to use IETF website and poking around).

Tom Petch

> > I note too that what I
> > see varies by WG so someone, WG Chair or AD, is doing something
> > selective in this area. I prefer to be told - I can always delete
> > e-mail which, given the structure of the IETF WGs, is something I
> > to do a lot of anyway.
> Sure - if the messages are sent (not BCC) to the WG list that is
> relatively painless. Robert assures us that will be the case, which
> will definitely help. But the trivia should be narrowcast.
> > I am rarely interested in everything a WG
> > takes up, sometimes only a third of the adopted I-Ds (apps-discuss
> > v6ops come to mind as having a particularly broad palette).  One or
> > more deletions is neither here nor there (and sometimes it also
> > as a 'keepalive' on a quiet WG list -  saves me checking the
archives to
> > see if I have been unwittingly unsubscribed :-).
> The problem isn't on the quiet lists...
> I would quite like to be able to "subscribe" to receive updates on a
> draft rather than on every draft in the WG. But maybe that is a
feature request
> too far.
>     Brian