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

t.p. <> Tue, 10 February 2015 10:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0384C1A1B9E for <>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 02:21:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GZwfw4pKe5QR for <>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 02:21:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::799]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C03DB1A0140 for <>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 02:21:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pc6 ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:17:44 +0000
Message-ID: <011a01d0451a$94cd67a0$>
From: t.p. <>
To: Pete Resnick <>, Robert Sparks <>
References: <> <> <>
Subject: Re: Strong objection to draft-ietf-WG-*.all noise levels
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:16:00 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: []
X-ClientProxiedBy: ( To (
Authentication-Results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AMSPR07MB247;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004); SRVR:AMSPR07MB247;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 048396AFA0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(13464003)(24454002)(51704005)(479174004)(377454003)(81686999)(86362001)(81816999)(14496001)(92566002)(50986999)(62236002)(44716002)(47776003)(62966003)(46102003)(66066001)(77156002)(77096005)(23756003)(50466002)(122386002)(15975445007)(50226001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(87976001)(44736004)(116806002)(230783001)(40100003)(42186005)(33646002)(74416001)(7726001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AMSPR07MB247; H:pc6; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AMSPR07MB247;
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2015 10:17:44.4016 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AMSPR07MB247
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
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: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:21:19 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Resnick" <>;
To: "Robert Sparks" <>;
Cc: <>;
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 10:49 PM
> 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
> make sure that IESG ballots were copied to the WG mailing list instead
> of being a private conversation between the authors, the chairs, and
> IESG, invisible to anyone else in the community. Seeing the ballots
> 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.

I think that the workings of the IETF are much improved by being better
informed as to what the IESG is doing and when.  I note too that what I
see varies by WG so someone, WG Chair or AD, is doing something
selective in this area.

I prefer to be told - I can always delete the
e-mail which, given the structure of the IETF WGs, is something I have
to do a lot of anyway.  I am rarely interested in everything a WG
takes up, sometimes only a third of the adopted I-Ds (apps-discuss and
v6ops come to mind as having a particularly broad palette).  One or two
more deletions is neither here nor there (and sometimes it also serves
as a 'keepalive' on a quiet WG list -  saves me checking the archives to
see if I have been unwittingly unsubscribed :-).

So, strong support for the better informed WG, even when it means that I
have more e-mails to delete,

Tom Petch

> Now, the mechanism used to accomplish that (adding the WG to the
> alias, which in turn adds it to the .all alias) sends *all*
> notifications regarding a document to the WG by default. Perhaps we
> 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.
> pr
> --
> Pete Resnick<>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478