Subject: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:15:31 -0500 (EST)

> From: Clint Chaplin <[email-masked]>

    > I wouldn't create two places to send comments and attempt to segregate
    > who can post to which group. However, creating an [email-masked]
    > email list and asking >all< last call comments to be sent to that

That also works for me.

	Noel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:56:54 +1300

>     > email list and asking >all< last call comments to be sent to that

I suppose it's better than sending them to this List of Last Resort
as we recommend today. But it's really important that the Subject
contains the draft name. Otherwise, sorting becomes a nightmare.

The radical alternative is of course a web-based method which ensures
that comments are logged and stored per-document, rather than arriving
as random email. That's also much harder to mail bomb.

   Brian

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:10:02 -0800 (PST)

> as random email. That's also much harder to mail bomb.

Seems like a unique mailbox per lastcall would be very helpful all around.
Right now, gathering and evaluating comments must be a nightmare. An 
alternative, would be a single LC mailbox as suggested, but require EVERY
subject line to carry the last call ID, preferable in a form sensible to
current mail clients.

In the case of unique lists per lastcall, provide an opt-in metasubcribe 
to make it easy for folks who generally want to follow last call 
discussions to just be subscribed.

*AND* require subscribe to post ... no cute confirm reply to bypass. I 
strongly believe that anyone who wants to provide feedback should want
to see the comments on their feed back. [If the cute confirm created
an automatic 48 hour subscription as per my next point, that would
work too.]

*AND* no unsubscribe or post only for 48 hours after initial subscription.
For real participants, this wouldn't be an issue and for email campaigns,
well they just need to experience the same disrruption their campaign
causes.

David Morris

---

From: Willie Gillespie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:34:08 -0700

> well they just need to experience the same disrruption their campaign

Not a bad idea.  In fact, it may be useful to have a unique "list" per 
draft, so every comment relating to a particular draft can be tracked 
historically.  This example is how I understand your suggestion:

[email-masked] will automatically be set up with 
the initial ID submission.  E-mails sent to it will be regarded as 
discussion pertaining to the draft.

Individuals interested in following the draft may subscribe to that list 
simply by sending an e-mail to it.  (However, e-mails with simply the 
word "subscribe" in the body or subject line won't be forwarded to 
everyone.)  They are also allowed to unsubscribe (perhaps following
  the 48-hour waiting period of initial subscription as David suggested).

Note also that e-mails sent to [email-masked] would not be 
sent to the general list of [email-masked].

I doubt this sort of functionality currently exists in Mailman, but 
perhaps it could be implemented.

Willie

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:42:36 -0800 (PST)

>> Right now, gathering and evaluating comments must be a nightmare. An 
...
> Not a bad idea.  In fact, it may be useful to have a unique "list" per draft, 
> so every comment relating to a particular draft can be tracked historically. 
> This example is how I understand your suggestion:
>
> [email-masked] will automatically be set up with the 
> initial ID submission.  E-mails sent to it will be regarded as discussion 
> pertaining to the draft.

Pretty much, I didn't quite say that because an alternative like:
    [email-masked]
where:
    lc_098 ==> ietf+housley-tls-authz-extns
would be an alternative with slightly easier usage and presentation in
email clients. A simple web index to map and perhaps a mailto: link.

Either way meets my basic use case.

David

---

From: Ralf Weber <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:11:04 +0100

Moin!

On 13.02.2009, at 03:34, Willie Gillespie wrote:
> Not a bad idea.  In fact, it may be useful to have a unique "list"  
> per draft, so every comment relating to a particular draft can be  
> tracked historically.  This example is how I understand your  
> suggestion:
>
> [email-masked] will automatically be set up  
> with the initial ID submission.  E-mails sent to it will be regarded  
> as discussion pertaining to the draft.
>
> Individuals interested in following the draft may subscribe to that  
> list simply by sending an e-mail to it.  (However, e-mails with  
> simply the word "subscribe" in the body or subject line won't be  
> forwarded to everyone.)  They are also allowed to unsubscribe  
> (perhaps following
I strongly disagree with that proposal. Some points only come up in  
the discussions about a draft. So if I hadn't subscribed to the draft  
mail list I would not become aware of that. I can see a point  
distinguishing between subscribers and non-subscribers to  
[email-masked], but what you are proposing here is like the working  
group emails list we have now and not what [email-masked] is about.

So long
-Ralf
---
Ralf Weber
Platform Infrastructure Manager
Colt Telecom GmbH
Herriotstrasse 4
60528 Frankfurt
Germany
DDI: +49 (0)69 56606 2780 Internal OneDial: 8 491 2780
Fax: +49 (0)69 56606 6280
Email: [email-masked]
http://www.colt.net/
Data | Voice | Managed Services

Schütze Deine Umwelt | Erst denken, dann drucken

*****************************************
COLT Telecom GmbH, Herriotstraße 4, 60528 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland  
* Tel +49 (0)69 56606 0 * Fax +49 (0)69 56606 2222 *

Geschäftsführer: Dr. Jürgen Hernichel (Vors.), Rita Thies *  
Amtsgericht Frankfurt/Main HRB 46123 * USt.-IdNr. DE 197 498 400

---

From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:02:02 -0500

I think this is potentially dangerous.  I use the [email-masked] list to
find out about work that's going on that I wouldn't know to tune into.
Sometimes the issues presented are not just relevant to the draft being
discussed, but have some broader community impact.  It is indeed this
broader community impact that is often decided in an IETF Last Call,
otherwise we would only have Working Group Last Calls and no IETF Last
Call...

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Willie Gillespie
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:34 PM
To: David Morris
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate

David Morris wrote:
> alternative, would be a single LC mailbox as suggested, but require 
> EVERY subject line to carry the last call ID, preferable in a form 
> sensible to current mail clients.
> 
> In the case of unique lists per lastcall, provide an opt-in 
> metasubcribe to make it easy for folks who generally want to follow 
> last call discussions to just be subscribed.
> 

> For real participants, this wouldn't be an issue and for email 
> campaigns, well they just need to experience the same disrruption 
> their campaign causes.
> 
> David Morris

  the 48-hour waiting period of initial subscription as David
suggested).

Willie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:15:15 -0800 (PST)

I think my proposal for an easy way to automatically subscribe to all
last call lists avoids that concern for folks such as yourself who want to 
follow the discussion while providing the operational efficiency of 
collecting all discussion in one place for actual analysis of last call
concensus. Amoung other things, I would expect that when a specific last 
call was out of my range of concern, I could unsubscribe from that 
specific discussion.

I've mentioned last call concensus analysis, but having individual 
archives would help anyone who suddenly discovered a concern to easily
retrieve all related comments.

Dave Morris

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:16:46 -0700

On Feb 13, 2009, at 11:15 AM, David Morris wrote:

> while providing the operational efficiency of collecting all  
> discussion in one place for actual analysis of last call

While there may be better ways of doing it, I'll note the IETF LC  
subject line is constructed to make it possible to find the LC  
comments. If you remove the draft name from subject line of any LC  
replies, you substantially reduce the odds of them being found and  
read by the IESG.

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:54 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:

>> while providing the operational efficiency of collecting all discussion in 
>> one place for actual analysis of last call
>
> While there may be better ways of doing it, I'll note the IETF LC subject 
> line is constructed to make it possible to find the LC comments. If you 
> remove the draft name from subject line of any LC replies, you substantially 
> reduce the odds of them being found and read by the IESG.

But by forcing that assumption, you preclude the possiblity of 
sub-dividing the discussion into related topics.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:12:06 +1300

> sub-dividing the discussion into related topics.

No. Just retain the draft name as part of the subject header.
To discuss foobars:

Subject: Foobars [Re: draft-ietf-barfoo-stuff-73.txt]

   Brian

    Brian