Exactly: the separate last call messages would continue to be posted immediately to the last-call list, and the summary to ietf-announce would serve as a reminder and as notice to those who don’t watch last-call closely (or at all).
Barry
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:14 AM STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> 1. Announcements sent manually by <various roles> = 284
> >> 2. Announcements of new and updated WG charters & WG closures = 44
> >> 3. (included in above 44)
> >> 4. Announcements of new non-WG mailing lists = 13
> >> 5. Announcements of new RFCs = 275
> >> 6. IESG and LLC telechat announcements = 39
> >> 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
> >>
> >> The "important-news" proposal would only retain those under (1) above.
> > I think that 1, 4, and 6 should all be retained as is (and in the new
> > list, if it's created).
> >
> > I think that 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 should be in a weekly summary, one
> > single message per week.
>
> I have a slight problem with this proposal because if it is implemented
> it would not be possible to find last call announcements by draft name.
> I think this is a rather important feature when searching archive.
>
> Unfortunately I don't have a solution for this problem.
I thought we were discussing changes to ietf-announce and not last-call. All these emails already exist on the last-call list and don't need to be repeated in their entirety on ietf-announce. A summary email to ietf-announce should be sufficient. Anybody wanting to subscribe to last-call has the ability to do so.
Barbara
