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

Tim Chown <> Thu, 12 September 2019 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 230FA120152 for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.298
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y4QU1eAhYOgD for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6557612020A for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mimecast20170213; t=1568311688; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/YlZumaUJyQN7tqCXpBUeqXGlhc4rUGC7rT1TjlrjLo=; b=b9fJGv2YLvz3p6YR3tagxb2aVs5vI3rTrCoPW5q/7m67x0L8u65Hb6AWmyoDIoJt6lpybQ j6TyHGT4AbpaochqW/esqhXKoA//hoF3UnhfRIczuexjLmhn8kfq8Ua0Etw4N2/4kxGjKg 6kwKpNNDRxqJjN3zhfubmxz0c1Jxsgg=
Received: from ( []) (Using TLS) by with ESMTP id uk-mta-111-dLoFw7RRNW2cfWvvB1TnkQ-1; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 19:08:05 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2284.10; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:08:03 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::5caf:b34c:faf9:51de]) by ([fe80::5caf:b34c:faf9:51de%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2263.016; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:08:03 +0000
From: Tim Chown <>
To: Barry Leiba <>
CC: IETF discussion list <>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
Thread-Topic: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
Thread-Index: AQHVaYU1pEn0Gn6A60eF5v44l/aCz6coVv4A
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:08:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
x-originating-ip: [2001:a88:d510:1101:5038:ae93:a361:de2f]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3bd10b22-e5bf-4360-7bdb-08d737ac27c2
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600166)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM0PR07MB4082;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR07MB4082:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 01583E185C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(366004)(136003)(376002)(39850400004)(346002)(199004)(189003)(33656002)(36756003)(86362001)(66574012)(14444005)(256004)(6486002)(6436002)(5660300002)(6512007)(54896002)(99286004)(50226002)(6916009)(81166006)(81156014)(8676002)(229853002)(46003)(486006)(476003)(446003)(4326008)(11346002)(8936002)(25786009)(2616005)(53546011)(6506007)(53936002)(478600001)(102836004)(76176011)(236005)(186003)(71190400001)(66476007)(66946007)(64756008)(66556008)(66446008)(76116006)(91956017)(786003)(316002)(7736002)(6246003)(2906002)(6116002)(14454004)(71200400001)(130980200001)(223123001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR07MB4082;; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: +ebBo0ebl9CTqbTrkf1BkllVXArMNDYLI1+WqorYMRSHTA9zGITjz46IdiYuI8Fe+EFJdU6zx4gdFApkw0Phia97QDUey0dTm6chgzf9s4wqgswwLNY8I/YTbHr3bQTRgjJhxxGRdxDzCRfw/XdgN0/tnE9v8H2i/dV8vH4v899agQFie6DpeIfQFEGeB/kVjkHcxyd648gV2FwuBzmu2S+U8LpMgKms2ACU+KXzSCQyExQYg1G5zJV0PvKolKuxkLwio5hVzoS83WBB4AslaR4J/tUtR70qLuPO+EUOrMpdIM0LAx5cqpZGsnEHAb/U+9FU4SdHLYRMsRLZTE/QtplAJQd9jwQu/SWLbXNogEj7bg6PFzQVgy+KNWY77YGZGDH9i7qPbJDEc3G/Qp5CypBvPeVCUy+cbLxf43TZj4E=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3bd10b22-e5bf-4360-7bdb-08d737ac27c2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Sep 2019 18:08:03.6574 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 48f9394d-8a14-4d27-82a6-f35f12361205
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 3cqAb4+VZlFNlMoX2w3lRht5hopGqnr7PrvaSVRLrTdU7cbhqgGsJxX7NZDpuMc/hGlfiBAWsuRC1yjkT27+2w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR07MB4082
X-MC-Unique: dLoFw7RRNW2cfWvvB1TnkQ-1
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E1CFE115CC2B4E1896D01A1C4D079D9Ajiscacuk_"
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: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:08:14 -0000


I think this is an excellent idea.

I know that at least the OPS-DIR review tool posts to<> by default, would such reviews go to last-call@ too?  They’re not always last call stage reviews, but most probably are.


On 12 Sep 2019, at 17:14, Barry Leiba <<>> wrote:

As we discussed in the plenary session at IETF 105 in Montréal, some
community members have suggested moving document last-call discussions
onto a dedicated "last-call" mailing list, and off of the general
<<>> list.  The latter is a high-volume list with a lot of
varied discussion, and some think that it would be useful to separate
the general discussion from the last-call discussion, to allow people
to choose which discussions (or both) to follow.  In the IETF 105
plenary, support was expressed for that separation.

The IESG agrees, and wants to try an experiment to that end.  We
propose to create <<>> and to direct last-call
comments and discussions there (the last-call announcements would
still go to <<>>, with "reply-to" set to the new
list).  That list would be monitored by volunteers recruited by the
IETF Chair, and digressions would be nudged back to <<>>,
while we would ask people having last-call discussions on this list to
please move them to the new list.  We would get the tools team
involved so that the distribution lists for directorate and
review-team reviews would be updated appropriately.

Our plan is to create the new list and pre-subscribe everyone who is
subscribed to <<>> at that time.  Of course, anyone could
unsubscribe to either or both lists immediately or later, but we think
that doing it this way would minimize the likelihood that people would
miss important stuff because of the move, and folks can choose what
they prefer from there.

After six months, we would do an initial evaluation, including getting
feedback from the community, to see how the experiment is working.  If
it seems worth continuing we would do so, and at a point that the
community decides that the experiment is a success (should it so
decide), we would start an update to BCP 45 to formally move the
location for last-call discussions, and we would update the 2007 IESG
Statement on Last Call Guidance.

We invite comments, here, on this plan, by the end of September. As I
say above, we've heard support from the community for the general
idea, and we'd like to make sure this direction is what the community

Barry, for the IESG