Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announcement list

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

Related but apart from discussion of what summaries might be sent by email -

There is a feed for last call documents at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/feed/last-call, and a page at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/in-last-call.

There are several feeds, fwiw. At one point there was a menu for them, 
but pressure to declutter the menus some time back took that away. There 
should at least be a summary page somewhere.

RjS

On 10/1/21 10:09 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> 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 <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     --On Friday, October 1, 2021 09:35 +0100 tom petch
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     > On 30/09/2021 21:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>     >> On 01-Oct-21 07:05, Michael Richardson wrote:
>     >>> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     >>> > On 30-Sep-21 04:07, Michael Richardson wrote:
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> Barry Leiba <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>