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

Richard Barnes <> Thu, 12 September 2019 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CE6120128 for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kc-mVdOB4ku3 for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2FB6120152 for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 12so6598193oiq.1 for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Y9lBtQCSrufghiM/RhFt77nAFc+fPkHOwozowIQl9dk=; b=cWoXUnn6NXOe89t/qJ5RKpHrHnvfNRMgjBGqdNr8N5PUYoj959h2UTOKCUf4zB4X51 B5qkA9CtKQFvMp1mZYp0NmqVpOFYu/30T/pIw4/SpFjTu7XJ+I1B1/aauA3CXyz89NIR jvbbWk+B5BR3+sVB7k/bb+bF3gDWLoeeWbK5aTgul2yeYMs49s5cWjI3Lrqiww06C7qy zhPQ9cv06tZdQi0YaKJ+dWGDaZUY31bxzOZJZOcJQ4pXlxpfmhoxnMqYaNczQRkooFIA oy7qLr1ofkUyFLdyVDIkXP6PYAdd0r8A512m/FPfK47h7tOJJKCI0GZ+mGmVPnzQcDdE IG8w==
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=Y9lBtQCSrufghiM/RhFt77nAFc+fPkHOwozowIQl9dk=; b=MuHoF6wOAfAJ2PqUAegQYC0p0ggBiBluWXpuIh2TE4rPszjKRahPdAJBfcl+E4UrOB cTX1oa+cTQBh+FnPtVTNb+ggwEp1yyffo3A+AqkOAQXqD5cMevEuoriwuXUhNSArIOsl 81GEI0NKl2gZpzwsCev6TxP8sr1ZcSNdIOWARwQyXe3qF5nKAlodMA+4s67KDyL8NLko +GfADJam1GYXp3kM/e+nEVCiHDAVvzDUPkG//FdR8JnedwRokb1a8Z0DkCnP+Ov+aFCZ OiUuJ0kHEFqkjBEaHulX4OitUzhDOZ4XPWe74EwLdWUKteZznHnJ+3W6VChQJia9fk+X 5ovQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXH0g7CrhB0K1IUitxjK45PSLbl+ySU7NkvJMoLRuqMBoE8nUd/ lNkXtQo1/qbm55OiM/25JIZ4NYYFWOyVrrvD1DIeFA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzwGQbdo8lxM1UHVweStjR87IpGMo1hg0jJZQYdOd1FWZTfAoz1+skqe8l8fGYHTwSggoV7XeVlwu/5z2Ny4Go=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:cc0b:: with SMTP id c11mr1157221oig.169.1568309525807; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Richard Barnes <>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:31:48 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: Eric Rescorla <>
Cc: Barry Leiba <>, IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002f1fcb05925e8428"
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 17:32:10 -0000


I have no comments on this.  You even answered my usual question about
"experiments", namely what the success criteria are.  Ship it.


On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:07 AM Eric Rescorla <> wrote:

> +1. This seems like a great idea.
> -Ekr
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:14 AM 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 <>rg>, 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 <>rg>,
>> 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
>> wants.
>> Barry, for the IESG