Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] First look: Improved email handling in the datatracker

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 01 September 2015 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A7D1B5896; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 10:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yActIBHUJldy; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 10:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 965061A1B15; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 10:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t81HbjxD063862 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:37:46 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Message-ID: <55E5E264.9050108@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 12:37:40 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tools-development@ietf.org
References: <55E252E6.5040604@nostrum.com> <CALaySJ+dv-az-D-DSUChKRcc2nb_EJ-zQxJ0CNKBfPW8E1jz0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-euN=BQa3iXwS5qTRVtf9p8vdUMcZHqvZE0ih_R8Vr2dg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-euN=BQa3iXwS5qTRVtf9p8vdUMcZHqvZE0ih_R8Vr2dg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090606080200090804020501"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-development/jQZ0GOKzPR3x9noWIA0fXzp7UJc>
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] First look: Improved email handling in the datatracker
X-BeenThere: tools-development@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Tools Development list server <tools-development.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-development/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-development@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 17:37:48 -0000


On 9/1/15 10:22 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>
> 4. On these two:
>
> charter_external_reviewTo: ietf_announce
>                         Cc: group_mail_list
>
> charter_external_review_new_workTo: new_work
>
> Are there charters that go to external review, that DON'T go to New 
> Work? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6756 has this:
>
>     The IETF maintains a mailing list for the distribution of proposed
>     new work items among standards development organizations.  Many such
>     items can be identified in proposed Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF)
>     sessions, as well as draft charters for working groups.  The IETF
>     forwards all such draft charters for all new and revised working
>     groups and BOF session announcements to the IETF new-work mailing
>     list.
>
> (I apologize for not knowing for sure, but I think that's the only RFC 
> that describes how this works. But maybe something has changed since I 
> moved from the IAB to the IESG)
>
>
These are separate more to allow control of what appears in the headers 
of what goes to the new-work list than to enable sending to new-work or 
not. (Even if they are always both sent, we shouldn't try to do it with 
one message).

The normal workflow would be to send both messages. The tool will allow 
the secretariat to send to only one, at the direction of the IESG.