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

Alexandre Petrescu <> Fri, 13 March 2020 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6283A176A for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 06:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.67
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n9NcQFacdWYY for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 05:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 067043A0F35 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 05:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 02DCxtqY004921 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:59:55 +0100
Received: from (localhost []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 955CD205E07 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:59:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB5B2012DD for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:59:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 02DCxtwt021957 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:59:55 +0100
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
References: <> <> <1UW5q6kOQ7.1wDRXqDDvh@pc8xp>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:59:54 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1UW5q6kOQ7.1wDRXqDDvh@pc8xp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:00:01 -0000

Le 13/03/2020 à 13:10, tom petch a écrit :
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob Sayre
> Sent: 13/03/2020 06:36:22
> Hi,
> In my view, the experiment is a success.
> <tp>
> A partial success.  It took me a while to realise that Last  Call announcements could not be found there.  This was a particular issue last week when I blinked and while I did, in excess of 500 new posts appeared on the ietf-announce list  making any last call announcement hard to find (My MUA support is wrecked and the web interface is primitive
> ---
> New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
> ),  I have found myself responding to a gen-art or secdir post which can only muddy the waters as my comments are totally unrelated to their comments,
> So to make it work, please post all Last Call announcements to the Last Call list; it is obvious really.
> Tom Petch
> </tp>
> It seems like the general IETF is currently concerned with issues not related to document review.

This is the question I am raising to myself, too.

I think in general, there are very few things important right now.

I struggle to concentrate on the ietf matter precisely.

I think as long as we post here as usual, regardless of how far the 
topic is on topic or not, is a good thing.


> thanks,
> Rob
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:14 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