On 16/03/2021 20:46, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 17-Mar-21 09:20, Michael Richardson wrote:
There has been a very long thread on last-call about the crocker draft on
email emojis. I'm now seeing the secdir review of
draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01 and subsequent thread
related to that. (Not yet as long as emoji)
Now, I think that the crocker draft was AD sponsored so maybe it didn't have
another place for the thread to go. But, certain draft-ietf-ecrit should
go back to ecrit list only?
I'm just wondering if last-call is working the way it was imagined it would,
or if there are some anomalies here. Should some kind of Reply-To: be enforced?
The WG should certainly be CCed but the whole point of IETF LC is to expose
the draft to the whole IETF to look for gotchas. So no, I don't see a problem.
Email is cheap, and easy to delete unread.
But... I do sort all last call traffic into a dedicated inbox, which makes
ignoring it very easy. This morning I see 13 unread messages in that inbox.
[pause]
It took me about 90 seconds to clear that inbox. Ten of the messages were
about drafts of no interest to me - deleted. One was a reply to my own
comment on a particular draft - read & saved. Two others were trivia about
the same draft - deleted. It took longer to write this message than to clear
that inbox. So I still don't see a problem.
I have a problem when the specialist reviews take place months, or
years, before Last Call so I would like a gate that the discussion
cannot appear on the Last Call list until a Last Call has been announced
by the IESG. This is a regular problem with YANG doctor reviews, which
WG Chairs often ask for at an early stage, but I see it too with
Security Reviews and, perhaps, Transport, congestion-related.
My take is that these topics are ones where some think that the WG lack
the expertise and so call in the specialists at an early stage, which is
fine but does not need to clutter up the Last Call list.
Tom Petch
Brian
