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

Rob Sayre <> Mon, 16 September 2019 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04287120123 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 o6FtO-bOQ3Mq for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97A7D1200C1 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q10so2142746iop.2 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XLXHmwx+KrlRg6FqBQZPvGS1/+6tjFOfpqx1qYu0FyY=; b=XxYHhMN1JKhSygn3ssXHyM5CxAt+j2CrSX8OJBCif5IMsLN/6hHgvgqGyViBCs8VWd bOoGnpVzNiv6h5YkVVlUTxwi0R2rq51MWXdZNpT9twV0X3djVe8AWbhv7Tel3PfjKELU Xs1ebIUFjulA4wBAGVBh78CEQbOBn7+NSSDnKAAeC9RdhQRqAO7majE8wfw0fX1ZK8Zh nH8HX/z/xHU1sRJTeFGg7DPyWk0BdAXZv3kv7VqAVo/QnSeOOockgTMOgWXhI0548YOM e16OWGoYuww9FpPqlRNfbqTSAj1UvPLbMohMNHHuDm9iuGKm8RHPVW4PrPXnw4STOWNa srUg==
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=XLXHmwx+KrlRg6FqBQZPvGS1/+6tjFOfpqx1qYu0FyY=; b=ITcDtbj2WHqT7b6yesMiG6221bXZqJvgzaZTRNn1hn7RfvP0Nx4/tg9+MxwRYqUhfz KrEP+fmyf/P+F2nDvkUhO19y4P+YVXyed3STugDwv6+jSmmd79WKktZIHk22tSYTEFYH Dm37Fy5sY0yfkRnwEAHcyOHN3JonQVjh3GJzuDrqez0k8ZGxwRh0PC4RnwiCagPNjho5 wE+7hLS9DNBh4eS6nXOk6q+HoLGGKHEe7rWy+CHM6f2zgtz3UUHGwjZn+nkkWZNvSRrt 8aAKLZcLRRcX/oLd+m3d+IfHygynB8liQWcKVTiG4z18PAacbv3dRJxeQmV+P1SKQxHK vCeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX4Ba60shocs0eanxEaxZLUF4EO51aLBVmS/i4h3V/3czBOVQk5 3iCjV0jm/Kop8NFSCRns8SdprTyQuDZ2Fd/7bjw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqymwa4LthDg/A3noSBHVbPB3We4JZYBA6/hVw3F7biP08pJESLNxXj2xPZQqTFmd2I4UfnsJnuMaHKHTWLzq3M=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8457:: with SMTP id w23mr50965ior.189.1568664750774; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F81AE7E530D4651A0806B087@PSB> <> <> <695F3A82D6E185E45D5D1344@PSB> <> <FF5AA683C551B936577EFE11@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <FF5AA683C551B936577EFE11@PSB>
From: Rob Sayre <>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 15:12:18 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: John C Klensin <>
Cc: Julian Reschke <>, Barry Leiba <>, Bob Hinden <>, IETF <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003ddc750592b13997"
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 20:12:33 -0000

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 2:56 PM John C Klensin <> wrote:

> >
> > So, I think there is an argument for keeping procedural RFCs
> > and "everything else" on I'm not sure how easy
> > it would be to do that.
> Actually, Rob, what I think I've observed is that the really
> long, tedious, threads on which many people have opinions and
> feel a need to express them multiple times are typically about
> procedural issues, with many, if not most, derived from
> documents in Last Call.  So maybe three lists rather than two or
> maybe we should push the procedural and administrative
> discussions off into an "ietf-procedures" list and keep the
> technical discussions and Last Calls on the IETF one.

I don't think it matters which list is which, but I do think the spirit of
the proposal is to keep both the procedural ratholes (like this one...) and
the catch-all/backstop/everything-else discussions away from the technical
last-call traffic.