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

John C Klensin <> Sat, 14 September 2019 06:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E19120033 for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ynnGG_eYdbR for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50F3C12000F for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1i91oF-0009KB-Am; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 02:45:27 -0400
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 02:45:21 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Eric Rescorla <>, Bob Hinden <>
cc: Barry Leiba <>, IETF <>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
Message-ID: <073FAB7287FB558ECCED2CE0@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <EDBBBD9628A18755F4366D0B@PSB> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
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: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 06:45:31 -0000

--On Friday, September 13, 2019 13:09 -0700 Eric Rescorla
<> wrote:

>> I am thinking that both lists should have the same
>> membership, that is, one can't unsubscribe from only one.
>> This would preserve the broad community review of last calls
>> and for community discussions, but still allow separate
>> discussions.
> I disagree with this. Part of the value proposition here is to
> allow people to engage with last calls and avoid the...
> unpleasantness... which is the ietf@ list.


I almost agree.  There have certainly been weeks lately in which
I would classify the bulk of the traffic on the main IETF list
as unpleasant and have wished that much of hadn't reached me.
However, we claim that the basis of what we do is "IETF
consensus".  Today, someone who opts out of the IETF list
essentially opts out of that consensus process no matter how
active they might be in, e.g., particular WGs.  If we split the
list and the membership of the two lists diverges, I wonder if
honesty and transparency require us to adjust our vocabulary to
indicate, e.g., "consensus of those who chose to participate in
the IETF's broad final review process".