Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Fri, 07 June 2013 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACA721F8887 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uD1F0Vquqdgq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF8F21F8411 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r57G34sd018692 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 17:03:04 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk r57G34sd018692
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1370620984; bh=rmxE1pYBQg5BJpXCXTcozTaLHys=; h=From:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To; b=2+dsMX5HI/zS8BWZcFosHpz3M9om8drMk27k4rjEGnGhcCgs1xQ/t/v73nkwJf29D 2mWxCX/KKYOuqQ/0lqDPZgVWXHirvrH0cXfpZnsyz6jKGnONrohHDUWvC0KKD1ZWQY oqjhVjrFsDpEAar9ytmpLYzkJbWmbXC2t4yRmb0g=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:401]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:68da]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id p56H340430660463Ib ret-id none; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:03:04 +0100
Received: from tjc-vpn.ecs.soton.ac.uk (tjc-vpn.ecs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.236.241]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r57G32R1018053 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 17:03:02 +0100
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_02CE10AD-F4A1-4E4F-B946-68203EA9BF4E"
Message-ID: <EMEW3|9e374f039865cf00887326b27c809739p56H3403tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|F8B44DCF-77F8-45A0-9B6B-9D70755A6BAA@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Subject: Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:03:02 +0100
References: <201306070453.r574r3Wt010088@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> <CADnDZ89FjyPtvJQSqY+kmX+1KYkc0jo1mRpOgkfcEnTH6Vbg6A@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751CA462@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <201306071449.r57EnN5N008971@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <CABCOCHSkLj0409hyeqKNdomOdrScYypi_7a1xWqMEUV9eTPuCw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751CA801@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <F8B44DCF-77F8-45A0-9B6B-9D70755A6BAA@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: "ietf@ietf.org list" <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751CA801@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=p56H34043066046300; tid=p56H340430660463Ib; client=relay,forged,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: r57G34sd018692
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:03:34 -0000

On 7 Jun 2013, at 16:52, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
>> So why not move the signal?
>> Put IETF Last Call mail on last-call@ietf.org and leave this list for everything else.
> 
> The discussion still has to happen somewhere.   I certainly am not restricting my meaningful participation in last calls, but even in that case it is important to be restrained and not get into long fruitless discussions, which, I am afraid, I am wont to do.

It's a significant problem for those who *have* to read the threads, in particular document authors, WG chairs, and ADs. Hats off to them for keeping up with it where they need to.

As another example, the v6ops list has recently also had four threads run well over the 100 message count, specifically end to end response time, ULA usage, "being careful" about ULAs and the semantic prefix thread. 

Of course, a healthy debate is a good thing, as is having an open process for discussion. If we had very few comments that would certainly not be good either. But I fear that some valuable contributions are either being drowned out, or that some people with valuable input are being put off contributing.

Tim