IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: is last-call working the way the IESG intended?

tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com> Wed, 17 March 2021 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <daedulus@btconnect.com>
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 2D6913A1308 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 04:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gq-iMKzrTW_3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 04:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR01-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr150092.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.15.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 475753A1306 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 04:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=gk98pNuBN4Ar/4AxywM56fwtLMPyx2WGn1ffleJq8COITi992fr4OGXBePKlfOG8oi8uekTHBr5QkHuvtMIruNQfSW4Z+YQtjSHy2k1VuB+ioujrQ5rR9m3v5aGuc2DAcJvHARNxEdFowuA1qHnBeVY+TGA7VlHtzZE65SA2REWPklay7Ic+Wf4PMBzGXDaBJuSC5yys4Yi79weqqck+cp63GIzh2/09dxiktpDH6Gh3lW/UbwDkpZ2wGh9aBwDnxYZM9kW45UU5KStkNe0cy3DufKA0fQFcaG6my8a9zGFw8UUIt+As+Z6vT2u1YVvAS6Se5PvAh8LUO3p9oeonGg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=NKB3wi3o+RSfpFrgNSedDuM38fdo9FJbosoy1J2nQaw=; b=JvwfVDiMQAVubdk12IiDxXw/6cPID4zKqvhMqeASFuqrVlhwiVPC7mY9RW9dArWLYveUtYY+Gfc26BriLu784VuCebIxerLF8mRiGqQMBeDUWRWwLoxCEk/foM7+mPBi0sVaHFdXNKW0y+VTwoBI55zw7AVkBmwPBB/ZcU5K5eGGahtRKBSoGHDSLDLqeTwkgeRs3U3+uQ9vyxg0i3+o3OH6D0OXWoudQTYQu2XWb7M2edtzyynBTTIjFGHk/I4kzLW5YwXfaOHZCSgAm/XTkkflzeIfu8CG8pcxO7IjbEAdTGe8r6N91rYD1ZmQYdi84O/mLjAJLAnAMaHx/XYLPg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=btconnect.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=btconnect.com; dkim=pass header.d=btconnect.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-btconnect-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=NKB3wi3o+RSfpFrgNSedDuM38fdo9FJbosoy1J2nQaw=; b=CS9F2mjBwBKIPMY+BntjwpkAoQqqdeU0QSKwxSIhphZBSJO2+5O9whbroerxtkX6DWaHt7uABQglB6rsUQlWmXsEqGZAlTtVjnnE+1BlCoTlZ8QAo+e8Xk5vhLp0kmhZAagkNh4Sc6IbPqga0idUlfPx27IDqGkWEkj3J9SuVcg=
Authentication-Results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=btconnect.com;
Received: from VI1PR07MB6704.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:800:18b::8) by VI1PR0701MB2223.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:800:31::10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3955.10; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:22:27 +0000
Received: from VI1PR07MB6704.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b993:4426:e494:2e38]) by VI1PR07MB6704.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b993:4426:e494:2e38%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3955.013; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:22:27 +0000
Subject: Re: is last-call working the way the IESG intended?
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <161591246412.5771.17798271339560020312@ietfa.amsl.com> <21848.1615926039@localhost> <21c2c301-198a-b457-849f-034df7b739d7@gmail.com>
From: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <6051E669.9020003@btconnect.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:22:17 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
In-Reply-To: <21c2c301-198a-b457-849f-034df7b739d7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [86.146.121.140]
X-ClientProxiedBy: LO4P123CA0247.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:1a7::18) To VI1PR07MB6704.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:800:18b::8)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (86.146.121.140) by LO4P123CA0247.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:1a7::18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.20.3933.32 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:22:27 +0000
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: c4ec4840-9b88-4736-dc2b-08d8e936f23a
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: VI1PR0701MB2223:
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <VI1PR0701MB2223F9AF4BF11C56258903D4C66A9@VI1PR0701MB2223.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:10000;
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:VI1PR07MB6704.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(346002)(376002)(366004)(396003)(39860400002)(136003)(316002)(956004)(36756003)(2616005)(8936002)(8676002)(87266011)(26005)(478600001)(52116002)(5660300002)(16576012)(186003)(6666004)(16526019)(66476007)(66556008)(66946007)(83380400001)(6486002)(53546011)(2906002)(86362001)(33656002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: 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
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c4ec4840-9b88-4736-dc2b-08d8e936f23a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: VI1PR07MB6704.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2021 11:22:27.5917 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: ew9fsFZWKRlSsRpiHFLRHi4rhjwqeCY5eX/FzmjWvTecWeua43PM40X9XodIF/Nm9odF//Xdl9YjFsOJa5B4EA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR0701MB2223
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pg2FQHqBAvqKENMDGgzfxQaC1jI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:22:32 -0000

On 16/03/2021 20:46, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 17-Mar-21 09:20, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> There has been a very long thread on last-call about the crocker draft on
>> email emojis.  I'm now seeing the secdir review of
>> draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01 and subsequent thread
>> related to that.  (Not yet as long as emoji)
>>
>> Now, I think that the crocker draft was AD sponsored so maybe it didn't have
>> another place for the thread to go.  But, certain draft-ietf-ecrit should
>> go back to ecrit list only?
>>
>> I'm just wondering if last-call is working the way it was imagined it would,
>> or if there are some anomalies here.   Should some kind of Reply-To: be enforced?
>
> The WG should certainly be CCed but the whole point of IETF LC is to expose
> the draft to the whole IETF to look for gotchas. So no, I don't see a problem.
> Email is cheap, and easy to delete unread.
>
> But... I do sort all last call traffic into a dedicated inbox, which makes
> ignoring it very easy. This morning I see 13 unread messages in that inbox.
> [pause]
> It took me about 90 seconds to clear that inbox. Ten of the messages were
> about drafts of no interest to me - deleted. One  was a reply to my own
> comment on a particular draft - read & saved. Two others were trivia about
> the same draft - deleted. It took longer to write this message than to clear
> that inbox. So I still don't see a problem.

I have a problem when the specialist reviews take place months, or 
years, before Last Call so I would like a gate that the discussion 
cannot appear on the Last Call list until a Last Call has been announced 
by the IESG.  This is a regular problem with YANG doctor reviews, which 
WG Chairs often ask for at an early stage, but I see it too with 
Security Reviews and, perhaps, Transport, congestion-related.

My take is that these topics are ones where some think that the WG lack 
the expertise and so call in the specialists at an early stage, which is 
fine but does not need to clutter up the Last Call list.

Tom Petch
>
>      Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email