Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request for working group feedback on draft-kuehlewind-system-ports (6th March, 2020)

"Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Tue, 18 February 2020 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD6B1208AE for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 07:31:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 4TBFqkwSaEvd for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 07:31:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6582C1208A2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 07:31:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 01IFVRLi063841; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 07:31:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from ietf@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 01IFVRLo063840; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 07:31:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <202002181531.01IFVRLo063840@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <1DB6A115-72D1-4317-9D55-204ED0543F6E@ericsson.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 07:31:27 -0800 (PST)
CC: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/pdgURjpesIRfCftyEOB6yWym_44>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request for working group feedback on draft-kuehlewind-system-ports (6th March, 2020)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:31:39 -0000

> Hi all, hi Joe,
> 
> A correction from my side (after checking with the secretariat): last call announcements are only sent to ietf-announce and not to last-call. Only the reply-to is set to last-call in order to have the discussion there. This was also a surprise to me and I didn't notice this myself as I apparently filter both in the same folder. I will follow up on this.
> 
> However, in conclusion all announcements went out correctly and you should subscribe to ietf-announce to see all last calls!
>
> Mirja

Hello Mirja, Joe, et al.

It seems that the above state should be more clearly documented.  From the mail list descriptions:

  About IETF-Announce  
    English (USA)

    The IETF Announce list receives announcements about IETF meetings, the activities and actions of the IESG, the RFC Editor, the NomCom, and other announcements of interest to the IETF community. This is for authorized posters only. No discussions. Announcements only.

  About last-call  
    English (USA)

    Discussion list for IETF Last Calls.

    To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the last-call Archives. 


I find it ambiguous at best that last-call announcements are only sent to IETF-Announce which is a high volume list with all sorts of announcements yet fail to go to the very list in which they should be "discussed."  Further I would consider it a systemic failure if something is posted to IETF-Announce soliciting discussion and was allowed to move forward without any discussion, no matter where that discussion would need to take place.  The fact that this document went to last call via announce and had no discussion should of been a red flag that there was some type of problem with engageing the proper audiance.

Formally I would like to request that the following actions might be taken to help with this ambigous state:
  a)  All last-calls should be sent to BOTH the ietf-announce list and the last-call list.  They should be marked reply-to: last-call.

  b)  The desciription of IETF-Announce have the fact that last-call announcements are sent there as well.

  c)  If a and b are not possible then the description of last-call should be updated to reflect the fact that the announcment of a last call is NOT sent to that list, and that one must read IETF-Announce to see them.

Regards,
Rod Grimes

> ?On 18.02.20, 10:41, "tsvwg on behalf of Mirja Kuehlewind" <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Joe,
>     
>     for some reason this only went out to the ietf-announce list and not the last-call list:
>     
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/C3YU0i15ZSTaYHPMKOe_8sGVmLk
>     
>     This is a tooling issue as it should have been sent to both. I will tell the secretariat to send it manually and raise a ticket to fix this in future. Thanks for flagging this!
>     
>     Mirja
>     
>     
>     
>     On 18.02.20, 05:38, "tsvwg on behalf of Joseph Touch" <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>     
>         
>         
>         > On Feb 17, 2020, at 8:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>         > 
>         > Joe,
>         > 
>         > On 18-Feb-20 12:06, Joe Touch wrote:
>         >> I object on process grounds at a minimum and call for its "last calls" 
>         >> to be revoked by the sponsoring AD and WG chair as follows:
>         >> 
>         >> 1) this doc went to "IETF last call" (according to the doc tracker) 
>         >> without ever being announced on the IETF-wide last call list
>         > 
>         > I don't understand what you think is wrong, procedurally.
>         > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/C3YU0i15ZSTaYHPMKOe_8sGVmLk
>         > is a standard Last Call message, and it's a 4-week last call as required
>         > for non-WG documents. As far as I can tell that fully respects RFC2026 etc.
>         
>         We have a Last Call mailing list. I searched there and found (and still find) nothing. What?s the point of the Last Call list then? 
>         
>         Joe
>         
>         
>         
>     
>     
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org