Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate

David Morris <> Fri, 13 February 2009 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333A73A6D3E for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:09:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.953
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J4wzQ1SkH9at for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:09:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C6A3A6D3B for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:09:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix-out) with ESMTP id AA01E101835 for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:10:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Propel-Return-Path: <>
Received: from ([]) by [] ([]) (port 7027) (Abaca EPG outproxy filter $Rev: 9262 $) id iz6Ur92d2a30; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:10:03 -0800
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix-out) with ESMTP id 940DF101834 for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:10:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1D2A2Wn008551 for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:10:02 -0800
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:10:02 -0800
From: David Morris <>
Subject: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Propel-ID: iz6Ur92d2a30
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:09:59 -0000

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2009-02-13 13:15, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>    > From: Clint Chaplin <>
>>    > I wouldn't create two places to send comments and attempt to segregate
>>    > who can post to which group. However, creating an
>>    > email list and asking >all< last call comments to be sent to that
>> That also works for me.
> I suppose it's better than sending them to this List of Last Resort
> as we recommend today. But it's really important that the Subject
> contains the draft name. Otherwise, sorting becomes a nightmare.
> The radical alternative is of course a web-based method which ensures
> that comments are logged and stored per-document, rather than arriving
> as random email. That's also much harder to mail bomb.

Seems like a unique mailbox per lastcall would be very helpful all around.
Right now, gathering and evaluating comments must be a nightmare. An 
alternative, would be a single LC mailbox as suggested, but require EVERY
subject line to carry the last call ID, preferable in a form sensible to
current mail clients.

In the case of unique lists per lastcall, provide an opt-in metasubcribe 
to make it easy for folks who generally want to follow last call 
discussions to just be subscribed.

*AND* require subscribe to post ... no cute confirm reply to bypass. I 
strongly believe that anyone who wants to provide feedback should want
to see the comments on their feed back. [If the cute confirm created
an automatic 48 hour subscription as per my next point, that would
work too.]

*AND* no unsubscribe or post only for 48 hours after initial subscription.
For real participants, this wouldn't be an issue and for email campaigns,
well they just need to experience the same disrruption their campaign

David Morris