Re: Strong objection to draft-ietf-WG-*.all noise levels

Pete Resnick <> Mon, 09 February 2015 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE33B1A8A5F for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:49:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ApHX4sZ8qPsf for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:49:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A70951A8A13 for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:49:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1423522193; x=1455058193; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ekbu6nVpLp9Wj+hg+5KzX9kHqNGOTuglSl9QGLMwaYo=; b=NHOEp8DCVUf+CjlADGsJeHJ3kuKMiA7p7cW8abZE58ORS42FTwApdADl Ga0drB30H8c5KCHa8xOB0oSbChbL4ExGp/+C7f4AANZlv3dmKG4Djt5jL bjYfmobzL3lNUcE6pULPdKRj4NsuFdgzDt/wSPMnoeMfIisDLlSGLVzRF 4=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7707"; a="82986187"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Feb 2015 14:49:52 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,546,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="848046659"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 09 Feb 2015 14:49:51 -0800
Received: from presnick-mac.local ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:49:50 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:49:48 -0600
From: Pete Resnick <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Sparks <>
Subject: Re: Strong objection to draft-ietf-WG-*.all noise levels
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
X-ClientProxiedBy: ( To (
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 22:49:54 -0000

On 2/9/15 2:11 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> I _think_ the conversation you need to be having to address your 
> objection is with the IESG on the decision to add the group to the 
> default notification list. 

That's fair. Speaking as one of the folks involved in the change:

The IESG, in part at the behest of the community, wanted to (by default) 
make sure that IESG ballots were copied to the WG mailing list instead 
of being a private conversation between the authors, the chairs, and the 
IESG, invisible to anyone else in the community. Seeing the ballots can 
always be turned off on a case-by-case basis, but it seemed better to 
have that as default instead of having to remember to turn it on on a 
case-by-case basis.

Now, the mechanism used to accomplish that (adding the WG to the .notify 
alias, which in turn adds it to the .all alias) sends *all* 
notifications regarding a document to the WG by default. Perhaps we want 
to change that.

Are there particular notifications that you *don't* want copied to the 
WG? Or maybe more to the point, are there notifications that you *do* 
want copied to the WG?

We'll work with the tools folks to make the right thing happen.


Pete Resnick<>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478