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

Barry Leiba <> Sat, 14 September 2019 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E6312008A for <>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 05:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.923
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.026, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k5AwB3HCP6gB for <>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 05:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A39C2120072 for <>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 05:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f4so67954451ion.2 for <>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 05:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
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=6J1C/hy+vCbpFbxNYAJA0QObQeUp680nPJfqxLlOi8Y=; b=MMMmMTftTh013nF/qtd/c7w2LERk3i4vq2qeIV5SEUfubTQjWDIYWATCoGdRC8vhzR O7DyDmHbGE3FKC8sOVKEALoJt6y3uXyN58xeEtPRy42OIj2/tgoB9HkwQqwGWaRu3/Ct CI8PE//wDxQU5Pf0O77PuWjU0LDv5Jz5ZQgfs3KLXEvMRrbeU+cN6k7L4r9hR36cxLj7 D/Yql2Zh5wyEQEhfqIjcRhPt1GFmJYlWbRSRY95fhGx8J/9eVfKipt6u2yRQWynlszjN Jlnzwm8e6E+/2EDGdtZqbJOrPOzvtnmJp7k6vmA7Vxtf/egOxfzSlsx+ICgBeKBpoo7a m7JQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVbeQMZLAy+p0z/owQN1E1puhVMxOSVRYm/vIoK86Wg42WDU4bc 3Q//WSVwIC2vjfbGGeq+PuqwAnk8Mh5FE9S6iuw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzU29u96vam6hd4cSEznzUYGMyAOvuheipRJByDH1L85Qt/bX5hQI5Nvhpk5g/zT0emUCHAGV5Nr6ql71Ia2tQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7709:: with SMTP id n9mr5808325iom.187.1568465563748; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 05:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <EDBBBD9628A18755F4366D0B@PSB> <> <> <> <073FAB7287FB558ECCED2CE0@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <073FAB7287FB558ECCED2CE0@PSB>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 08:52:32 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: John C Klensin <>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <>, Bob Hinden <>, IETF <>
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: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:52:47 -0000

I don't follow this reasoning, John: it's already the case that many
IETF participants don't subscribe to the IETF discussion list, and
subscribing to it is not in any way a requirement.  Lots of people opt
out and do not think they're opting out of participation in IETF
consensus.  Last-call announcements go to ietf-announce and are
visible to people who subscribe to that, and not to this.  Last-call
discussions are often copied to the working group, as well.

If anything, separating the lists might *increase* the number of
people who explicitly subscribe to last-call discussions (but who
don't want to deal with the high volume on this list).


On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 2:45 AM John C Klensin <> wrote:
> --On Friday, September 13, 2019 13:09 -0700 Eric Rescorla
> <> wrote:
> >> I am thinking that both lists should have the same
> >> membership, that is, one can't unsubscribe from only one.
> >> This would preserve the broad community review of last calls
> >> and for community discussions, but still allow separate
> >> discussions.
> >>
> >
> > I disagree with this. Part of the value proposition here is to
> > allow people to engage with last calls and avoid the...
> > unpleasantness... which is the ietf@ list.
> Ekr,
> I almost agree.  There have certainly been weeks lately in which
> I would classify the bulk of the traffic on the main IETF list
> as unpleasant and have wished that much of hadn't reached me.
> However, we claim that the basis of what we do is "IETF
> consensus".  Today, someone who opts out of the IETF list
> essentially opts out of that consensus process no matter how
> active they might be in, e.g., particular WGs.  If we split the
> list and the membership of the two lists diverges, I wonder if
> honesty and transparency require us to adjust our vocabulary to
> indicate, e.g., "consensus of those who chose to participate in
> the IETF's broad final review process".
>    best,
>     john