Hi Michael, On 2021-3-16, at 22:20, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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? both of these threads were on Last Call reviews, and so the last-call mailing list is an appropriate home for them. I'll also note that he discussion on draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01 was CC'ed to the ecrit WG, so you could set up your mail filter to move those into your ecrit mail folder instead of the last-call folder, should you prefer that. > 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? We discussed this in the IESG, and we believe that the last-call mailing list is working as intended. I'll note that there was a lengthy discussion (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1Jum0QW3b6AATJXF31P3g7IpUF4/) six months after the last-call experiment started that seemed to indicate that the community agrees with that assessment. Looking back at the mail archives, I noticed that the email establishing the last-call experiment (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LiB_dlvv3ZFlTF8hGp7GbGngqSg/) suggested two actions in the case that the experiment concluded successfully, which seem to have not been implemented yet: 1. update BCP 45 to formally move the location for last-call discussions (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3005/) 2. update the 2007 IESG Statement on Last Call Guidance (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/last-call-guidance/) I've started an individual draft on the fist item (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-bcp45bis/), and we'll discuss the second item in the IESG. Thanks, Lars Eggert IETF Chair
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
