Re: WG notifications of new IDs is causing problems

[Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Michael,

It would be helpful to shorten the subject line prefix, no matter where the new version notification in (2) is sent.

I would prefer that the new version notifications in (2) not be sent to the working group mailing list at all, 

- since the ID announcement is also sent to the working group mailing list within a minute or two (for the drafts I've submitted in the past 10 days), and

- since the ID announcement includes a URL for the ID, which the new version notifications do not include, so they aren't as useful as the ID announcements are.

Thanks,

Spencer
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mary Barnes 
  To: Michael Lee ; Jari Arkko 
  Cc: [e-mail] ; Fuller, Barbara ; Russ Housley ; Suleymanova,Dinara 
  Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:48 PM
  Subject: RE: WG notifications of new IDs is causing problems


  The issue folks are having is with the cc'ing to the WG list for item number 2, since the WG is notified in number 1, as well.  It is slightly annoying, but when folks aren't paying attention and start a thread from those emails without changing the Subject, the real problem that James identified occurs.

  Mary. 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: Michael Lee [mailto:[e-mail]] 
  Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:36 PM
  To: Jari Arkko
  Cc: Michael Lee; [e-mail]; Russ Housley; Fuller, Barbara; Suleymanova, Dinara
  Subject: Re: WG notifications of new IDs is causing problems


  For a working group document submission, the submission tool send out following announcement/notifications: 


  1. I-D Action announcement to the I-D announcement list and wg mailing list.
  2. A new version notification to the submitter and authors of the document. WG list gets cc'ed.
  3. If the document has been requested for publish and evaluated by the IESG, a notification is sent to the shepherding AD and whomever the shepherding AD has indicated within the ID Tracker (WG mailing list is a default list in this field.)


  Hope this message can clear some vagueness regarding the issue.


  BTW, [e-mail] was cc'ed because a shepherding AD indicated this address in ID tracker.


  Best regards,
  Michael Lee,
  IETF Secretariat.


  On Nov 15, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:


    James, Russ,

    > Geopriv and SIPPING have a lot of of these right now, so this issue
    > isn't just to one draft, it's to an entire class of message type - and
    > I find it annoying and makes reading through the 150+ messages I get
    > each day less efficient instead of more efficient *and* makes tracking
    > threads nearly impossible.

    I looked at geopriv and sipping archives; many of the messages in
    recent weeks were sent by the authors themselves, eg.

      http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg04649.html
      http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg04665.html
      http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg14735.html

    But I also found cases where the submission tool sent the message:

       http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg04573.html
       http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg14726.html

    Russ' theory was that this could be an error in the tracker's e-mail
    notification
    field. But at least for this draft (geopriv-revised-civic-lo) the data
    seemed
    correct. I also tested whether the tool used for deriving the addresses for
    [e-mail] was somehow at fault, but
    it seemed to list just the authors, as it should. Same for sipping-pending-
    additions.

    So, maybe this comes from the submission tool, an error in the secretariat's
    internal database (that I can't see), or I missed something.

    Jari