Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 26 February 2020 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1932A3A08C9; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:58:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aTjLmGSSXaW8; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:58:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13FDF3A0902; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:58:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id a22so1109991oid.13; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:58:20 -0800 (PST)
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=v4E7auzoXUSxZyVrsZsiXGsiixZlQrq4k4zMbfYV5BA=; b=cUD315EYT9uoukHHW1Abn0b27GwsO0sKVy96xy3b+xivGiX2xXGe7B1OH/AKX57nvK wDz0kdzFA9wLBzQnNxpHHxldy/moEL+AvREAB91tkj8PMwL/t7KjthTX+i9LH1U/ca1A PEPcQcUZArKmLHLiPHH8pMWkVOFOg2tQUxnlUyrtp6GECLYHgdUajkGX852aeQNsoyjW 3zaGRt4f+59+o3cOCU3GAqCrIdXZ3l5pCKpqX4JE6CedwzpG8LPzESUDIQwVlmT6XY5z rYM27L1iI3WTtdH/z7g69FsJqqO0J5LviGh+fH94Rnb+/hBDRzfNpgkG+BMYxe9u6Epq ATiw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU+vZuRJkCqjlb782nbBq7gXHq7LPBbJFbJVS8WTIXFpiXNvs81 wry1Iju6hEHz7MKgYXZ05IgYovqOYxakpgnLPq1CnA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyksKfJfo8qN1cZKmaktxOmYmoGmSmxqzruMr3Q012WPOAhwuI1V9V3KrahwOxMF5V9CJur3BNxRcdjE7GGd6k=
X-Received: by 2002:a54:440e:: with SMTP id k14mr880297oiw.160.1582754298470; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:58:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <13032.1582721936@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <13032.1582721936@localhost>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:58:06 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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 21:58:27 -0000

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 4:59 AM Michael Richardson
<> wrote:
> The ietf-lastcall split has been good for ietf-announce volume, but

But here's the thing: That split should have not affected the volume
on ietf-announce *at all*.  It should have reduced volume on
<>rg>, which is a very different thing.  This isn't the
message thread to discuss that further, but I mention it here to lead
into agreement with some other comments:

I believe that having a new "rfp-announce" list is a fine thing *if*
RFC announcements are posted to *both* ietf-announce and rfc-announce.
That should satisfy all the concerns here: those who subscribe to
ietf-announce need to change nothing and will still get RFP
announcements, and those who only want RFC announcements and not the
other stuff can subscribe only to rfp-announce -- it's an individual