RE: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate

"Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <> Fri, 13 February 2009 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E433A6BE5 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:01:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZkmtZAzzYtnK for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:01:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C953A6967 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:01:58 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,203,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="37015835"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2009 18:02:04 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1DI240h013314; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:02:04 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1DI24x9009112; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:02:04 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:02:04 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:02:02 -0500
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate
Thread-Index: AcmNg7CDfaPYxLcgSgGkv4kBneeqOgAgNyBA
References: <> <><> <>
From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <>
To: Willie Gillespie <>, David Morris <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2009 18:02:04.0130 (UTC) FILETIME=[2D368C20:01C98E05]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3082; t=1234548124; x=1235412124; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;;; z=From:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20< m> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Changes=20needed=20to=20Last=20Call=20b oilerplate |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Willie=20Gillespie=22=20<wgillespie+ietf@es2eng.c om>,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22David=20Morris=22=20<dwm@x>; bh=vkjQkL4SoxWoTjGENmO4ghegH91P1pin6TZZd0AMElI=; b=lN+1fZze8WAGz9beZ6/ZYahA8gyzjOSFWzUeRpIfDHA6FBLBi8QJ8YevnU 0WGEYRWU83CIrosKsRd0/OlcgM7zKt7Z+8lKHHOfeKz9bKkQDcTXSxDaruRG DlqJkvqK4T;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1;; dkim=pass ( sig from verified; );
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 18:01:59 -0000

> 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

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of
Willie Gillespie
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:34 PM
To: David Morris
Subject: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate

David Morris wrote:
> Seems like a unique mailbox per lastcall would be very helpful all
> 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
> 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

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.

Ietf mailing list