Re: WG notifications of new IDs is causing problems

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

On 2007-11-15 23:48 Mary Barnes said the following:
> 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.

Exactly.

Please don't Cc: the WG list for item number 2.


	Henrik


> 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
> 	
> 	
> 
> 
>