Re: [Tools-discuss] last-call list subject lines

Robert Sparks <> Mon, 28 September 2020 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F933A13E2 for <>; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.292
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.292 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9tDdCd10ZGvD for <>; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EBC13A0B3C for <>; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unescapeable.local ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 08SKixxg027444 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:45:02 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1601325902; bh=t+f1OhIikF1Cp5aWoR8tOcKmPHz6Bu9fFW2HDn8coJY=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=cOGjFcxEIRH05T7qe+6SpvA4vw6wrjLniBtF5ZedlXX6L4iArWCmlgwciLKZAS92F RIx6MBwmcJpmF0mwz+9/dpAI4j8ssVXOcKte5ML1Y1Hed1aJQcVOeu5uAa1SxLegth 9fVU5quRSiwh6OTSMtO4LAcqc0ojfGw2rW2GuBvg=
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be unescapeable.local
To: Michael Richardson <>,
References: <8313.1601319931@localhost> <> <30810.1601325183@localhost>
From: Robert Sparks <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:44:58 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <30810.1601325183@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] last-call list subject lines
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 20:45:05 -0000

On 9/28/20 3:33 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Robert Sparks <> wrote:
>      > Can you say more about why that change would help?
> Sorting by subject would be more useful.
> Scanning by eye is easier, particularly since the right-hand
> side often gets truncated.
> Yes, I can use search in the end, which is what I did.


Searching would be made a little more difficult were we to change things 
as you suggested (at least with simple string searches).

Right now, you can search for all the reviews on a doc using "review of 
draft-<blah>" or "telechat review of draft-<blah>".

Splitting it as you propose would require two passes (or something that 
does more than simple string matching) to get the second thing.

I see the potential benefit in subject sorting.

I'm not sure its a big enough win to drive a change though - if we were 
to change, future searchers (looking across the period of change) would 
have to search for both things.

Also, for sorting there's the tradeoff against someone that wants to 
sort by type of review or team.

Scanning by eye suffers some of the same tradeoffs. Since group acronyms 
tend to be short, as are the types of review, the form of the line is 
currently mostly static as you scan down - the column breaks move a 
little with a very rough right edge. Moving the draft name to the front 
will make all the column boundaries very rough.

> --
> Michael Richardson <>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide