Subject: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:15:29 +0100

Noel Chiappa wrote:

(Discussion deleted)

> I think these (and the per-draft mailboxes others have mentioned) are probably
> all steps in a long-term plan, with the eventual optimum system being the
> web-based thing you mention.

What is exactly the problem we're trying to solve here?

I think most of us like to see LC comments related to the drafts that
they are somehow involved with (author, WG participant, etc).  Posting
those comments to the ietf list takes care of that, without work or
effort from anybody.

Most of the 250+ drafts that go last call every year, generate no
comments on the list.  The TLS draft is an exception with 100's of
replies.  However, I cannot remember any similar cases in the last
10 years.  Pressing delete 100 times worked for me, that is a few
minutes of work in a 10 year period, in other words no work at all.

Do we really want to introduce all kinds of complex procedures just
based on one incident?

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no
          hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no
          hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:40:08 +0200

Despite currently excessive number of comments, I think we should invite 
more comments and make it easier, not harder to send them. Even if 
traffic on the list is now too high and information content per message 
is low, in general our average number of comments in the IETF Last Call 
stage is too low.

I don't have a problem with the number of messages. Deleting is easy. 
But I wouldn't mind stricter enforcement of the Subject lines...

Note that this opinion is entirely separate from the value of the 
comments. Repetition and mail bombing is not valuable. Well justified 
opinions are very valuable. The latter may come from both inside and 
outside the IETF; sometimes experts on some topic can be persuaded to 
send in a comment, but not to subscribe to lists or engage in lengthy 
debate.

Jari

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 09:00:49 +1300

> What is exactly the problem we're trying to solve here?

Henk, at least in my mind it is *not* solving the outlier case of
an organised mail bombing; pretty much any solution that remains
in the IETF spirit of openness will be subject to some kind of bombing
(and probably should be, if we're serious about being an open
[dis]organisation).

In my mind the problem is how to collect and classify all the comments
on a given draft, so that the authors, the WG, the IESG, and anyone
else who needs to, can review them all. Being able to do that easily
would be a significant benefit for the efficiency of document review.
and would help make our process more transparent.

> those comments to the ietf list takes care of that, without work or

Not so, if people disrespect the request to retain the subject header
of the Last Call message. I assure you from my time on the IESG, when
I was supposed to have an opinion about the consensus from every
Last Call, that the lack of fully automatic sorting of comments
was a major pain. It's even worse when the IESG or IAB needs to
review a document's history because of an appeal.

> comments on the list.  

And that's a problem in itself.

> The TLS draft is an exception with 100's of

I agree completely; it's not the main problem.

> Do we really want to introduce all kinds of complex procedures just

No... as explained above.

    Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:50:06 -0500

--On Friday, February 13, 2009 17:40 +0200 Jari Arkko
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> I don't have a problem with the number of messages. Deleting
> is easy. But I wouldn't mind stricter enforcement of the
> Subject lines...
>...

If you wanted something that would work as well or better than
Subject lines, and that would actually make things easier if, as
is periodically the case, the discussion of a particular
document diverges into different subthreads, consider using
subaddresses that are different for, and unique to, each Last
Call.

Subaddresses are not as widely used and supported on the net as
some of us think they should be.  However, the usual comments
about dogfood-eating apply as, perhaps, does the observation
that anyone without sufficient clues to send a message to a
mailbox that uses a subaddress may be someone we, in fact, don't
need to hear from.

    john

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Feb 2009 22:12:50 -0000

>is low, in general our average number of comments in the IETF Last Call 

The problem isn't sending the comments, it's getting people to read
drafts, think about them, and offer cogent comments.

As we've been seeing, the comment step when not preceded by the
reading and thinking steps is at best useless.

R's,
John

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:15:04 +0100

> drafts, think about them, and offer cogent comments.

It is not clear if you imply that people read more the comments than 
the drafts. However, comments and drafts are not formally linked.

For an example of a different approach, those who commented on the 
GPLv3 draft saw its web interface. Text had different colors according 
to the number of comments related to a given snippet. One could click 
on the text to browse related comments, and possibly answer or add to 
them.

Perhaps, we could send comments to [email-masked], 
where one can get such token while viewing the draft with a web tool, 
in order to link a comment to a specific section of the relevant 
draft's text. This or similar technique would allow to formally link 
the drafts to their comments, without altering the current work flow. 
More web links to the drafts, e.g. attached to a message while 
removing the opaque token before resending, may result in more draft 
lookups.

Just a thought.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:58:18 +0100

Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> Despite currently excessive number of comments, I think we should 
> invite more comments and make it easier, not harder to send them. Even 
> if traffic on the list is now too high and information content per 
> message is low, in general our average number of comments in the IETF 
> Last Call stage is too low.
>
I think anyone who posts to the IETF list should have his unsubscribe 
function disabled for a week.
That seems like a punishment that fits the crime.

(despite the obvious workarounds)

                  Harald

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:00:05 -0800 (PST)

>> Note that this opinion is entirely separate from the value of the comments. 
>> Repetition and mail bombing is not valuable. Well justified opinions are 
>> very valuable. The latter may come from both inside and outside the IETF; 
>> sometimes experts on some topic can be persuaded to send in a comment, but 
>> not to subscribe to lists or engage in lengthy debate. 

But first, subscribing must be required, or automatic with the post 
confirmtion. I thought my 2 day penalty box was radical, but a week
would be fine with me.

Dave Morris

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Feb 2009 21:30:03 -0000

>the drafts. However, comments and drafts are not formally linked.

It doesn't matter whether they read the drafts in a multi-colored
hyperlinked web interface or hand lettered on parchment.  But comments
from people who haven't read what they're commenting on are, as we
have just seen, unlikely to be of use to anyone.

R's,
John