Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announcement list
Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 01 October 2021 15:12 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEBBD3A0C25; Fri, 1 Oct 2021 08:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 g6yJaCYCmLgr; Fri, 1 Oct 2021 08:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa2c.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2c]) (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 A8B6F3A0DE8; Fri, 1 Oct 2021 08:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa2c.google.com with SMTP id f126so3894640vke.3; Fri, 01 Oct 2021 08:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=skdXfNXasGBkYoNSCLHlbBuglMYl21OqeLsMepF7cvI=; b=Hgp81RWtJToIFtaxIRg09khnaycGWRkY1EbEs6UYYwKvUYQoUy1okz9uSnOcc6v3id 1ZvQfEXuXcGh+KJNFNd514KyIRLm7x/AoSepTUvP5MZ9INv3f7SbQ487urSHskqnl21Q 0/I4ALzzIq4NFKRspvmY8LIm3VSARdasKJCRGIQk9ybaCrMCOysEttHhC4Uj/oUtaAG9 /eN53DzjgEypMY7mNpvEAyvzgCFfCKXlM2v2rwP+GMLGrqakcHQUAg0AHipxi4MzKzwE jW3GluUul3dc++xxv1JSgU21JcAUe2PYUeljh1UuoUSh9yUR5nP5n9GitzcqlGCTLap8 80bw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=skdXfNXasGBkYoNSCLHlbBuglMYl21OqeLsMepF7cvI=; b=5F/bLxFXgvFFpTx4w4v7dVmMAqNDjc8kWJ8yspebiNOymAILqIlIcJB70irTAlRSWU rD5EX7ZWFOeihdIfDsD2rR5/XtwDcaEj0fcfbHLMzy8FRe+bB4rqIvOukZvW4esdUlQs bNNxCy0GAd5Ms9RNzlruixt2RCFo4riP0KyNBDxr8ZvPdi4DEjiZmEtx+E9B3zCje7vF jVqSTITbWeNPhE+NttaeBUgm+IXR1drbvxWc3RrWucA43k07l64xvkjS3r/Ecj3q3R6N CWhJNhTYHUJPyB5695Iy3ReI+24U1PVIbbGH1dux8NLic83H7eKOO/4D4/mhPXwanDAk VTGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5318ZoFAGMEWuCTP1dpg1GNO1i31snRy0LegyNiJtqZNhX4YYsGz 8ckZnHFhUzPBe2s1dsUDUWAKR+V19vdn+u02vJA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwhCZyJ65ujFPQbRruQbpOta9xkEFRmMFySgvnJmSOQkDmUAypMN6bVeHA1XZ0xSue/gNrZwQX0gNGQdDmKpTY=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:8fc1:: with SMTP id r184mr7996163vkd.9.1633100974497; Fri, 01 Oct 2021 08:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f22d22ea-80da-e595-d91f-c577461766a3@huitema.net> <44B61547-1B28-4D1C-88C1-4AD7BA7F9639@lear.ch> <69E7C755-D09C-447B-B327-4F13C19A3EED@eggert.org> <475d7515-f71a-c3f0-e455-03336226cc47@lear.ch> <04F3603A-514B-49DF-81C5-36023CBBB69E@eggert.org> <CALaySJLseu4Ci_=-OZDN1NKLimnfLSjnPFyv2bwOnOxL6q4RGg@mail.gmail.com> <3627.1632928020@localhost> <6c6129eb-21b0-6bf1-86a8-f092fe78b3d4@gmail.com> <29954.1633025138@localhost> <b7101988-a26a-019a-bee8-7605b4a6d212@gmail.com> <6156C837.3020003@btconnect.com> <D9D2D7FF0974E6C3F00CCE65@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <D9D2D7FF0974E6C3F00CCE65@PSB>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 10:09:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-dUNsnvVixd6ysaQ-s7feCgiA4sCm_52OV9xLj6YePX+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announcement list
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, Working Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000077a44f05cd4bf30b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/9jm53wWW4Er-JXB7iDFIGtmkCX0>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 15:12:39 -0000
Top-posting to say that this conversation seems headed in the right direction. IIRC, the thing we were trying to accomplish with the Last-Call mailing list, was to make it easier for People Who Care to follow the entire Last Call thread for a specific draft, without having to dig through all of the posts on the IETF discussion list. If a summary of what's entering Last Call, and what's in Last Call, was available, that would make it easier for People Who Care to see that it's time to provide last call comments for specific drafts in specific threads, and that would also be appreciated. Best, Spencer On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 6:40 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote: > > > --On Friday, October 1, 2021 09:35 +0100 tom petch > <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote: > > > On 30/09/2021 21:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> On 01-Oct-21 07:05, Michael Richardson wrote: > >>> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > On 30-Sep-21 04:07, Michael Richardson wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: > >>> >> > I think that 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 should be in a > >>> >> > weekly summary, one single message per week. > >>> >> > >>> >> Mailman has a digest mode. Would that suffice? > >>> > > >> > No, because from observation, most people who reply to a > > digest don't > >>> > change the Subject to a useful string. This would be > >>> > disastrous for Last Call workflows in particular. > >>> > >>> The categories proposed that would be on a list that would > >>> be digestable would be (based upon what Barry wrote): > >>> > >>>>>>> 2. Announcements of new and updated WG charters & WG > >>>>>>> closures = 44 5. Announcements of new RFCs = 275 > >>>>>>> 7. Announcements of document actions = 175 > >>>>>>> 8. Announcements of IESG conflict-review results = 14 > >>>>>>> 9. Last call announcements for I-Ds = 174 (+ 4 for > >>>>>>> other actions) 10. Interim WG meeting announcements = 256 > >>> > >>> So, we'd need to not include Last Call Announcements in that > >>> list. Then would it work for you? > >> > >> Not if it ever leads me to receive a message with a subject > >> like > >> > >> Re: document-actions Digest, Vol 52, Issue 41 > >> > >> That one would take many times longer before I could hit > >> delete than > >> > >> Re: Document Action: 'Boring Stuff' to Informational RFC > >> (draft-ietf-boring-stuff-10.txt) > > > > Spot on. Digests are dire, uninformative header, hard to find > > the real content in, unsuitable Reply to. > > > > By contrast, I think that Last Call announcements get it > > almost right. The Subject line tells me whether or not I am > > interested, I only need the body for the date (which I would > > like to be more prominent). > > > > I suggested earlier that while Last Call should each have a > > separate e-mail on some list, yet a weekly summary would cut > > by a factor of three the traffic on whatever is the new list. > > I did not mean digest! rather a customised e-mail taking the > > subject line of each Last Call announcement and putting it on > > a separate line in the body > > > > e.g. > > > > Last Call: <draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04.txt> (Finding the > > Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service) to Internet > > Standard > > > > Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-15.txt> (Stream > > Control Transmission Protocol) to Proposed Standard > > > > Last Call: > > <draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-17.txt> (YANG > > Modules describing Capabilities for Systems and Datastore > > Update Notifications) to Proposed Standard > > > > or, less expansive, > > > > Last Calls week ending .... > > > > <draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04.txt> to IS > > > > <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-15.txt> to PS > > > > <draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-17.txt> to PS > > > > PS: Proposed Standard > > IS: Internet Standard > > Yes. And then including the expiration dates would be even more > important. I note that you have "week ending" but I'd suggest > two sections: > New announcements > Previously announced > > Any resemblance between that and the "New items" and "Returning > items" breakdown on the IESG agendas -- and the fact that the > first three lines of each item identify file name, proposed > status, title, and relevant Area-- reinforce the value of such > a summary. Like you, I'd add Last Call expiration dates (not > needed on the IESG agenda because documents don't show up there > until they are close to or past those dates). > > best, > john > >
- Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announcement l… IETF Chair
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Melchior Aelmans
- IETF calendar (was: Re: Proposal: an "important-n… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Bob Hinden
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Christian Huitema
- RE: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Eliot Lear
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Salz, Rich
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… David Noveck
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Tim Wicinski
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Lucas Pardue
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… John C Klensin
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… tom petch
- Re: [irsg] Proposal: an "important-news" IETF ann… Lars Eggert
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Lars Eggert
- Re: [irsg] Proposal: an "important-news" IETF ann… Lars Eggert
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Lars Eggert
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Eliot Lear
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Lars Eggert
- RE: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… MORTON JR., AL
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Stephen Farrell
- RE: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Eliot Lear
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Carsten Bormann
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Barry Leiba
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Alexey Melnikov
- RE: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… MORTON JR., AL
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Robert Sparks
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Michael Richardson
- RE: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… John C Klensin
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Barry Leiba
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Barry Leiba
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… John C Klensin
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… tom petch
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… tom petch
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Michael Richardson
- making upcoming calendar more useful Michael Richardson
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Jay Daley
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Barry Leiba
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Jay Daley
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Martin Thomson
- Why last calls matter more than ever [Re: Proposa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: making upcoming calendar more useful John C Klensin
- Re: making upcoming calendar more useful Warren Kumari
- Re: making upcoming calendar more useful Barry Leiba
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… tom petch
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Michael Richardson
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… tom petch
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… John C Klensin
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Michael Richardson
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Robert Sparks
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… Michael Richardson
- Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announceme… John C Klensin
- The links page [was: something else] Brian E Carpenter