On 30/09/2021 21:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 01-Oct-21 07:05, Michael Richardson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 30-Sep-21 04:07, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > I think that 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 should be in a weekly summary, one
>> > single message per week.
>>
>> Mailman has a digest mode. Would that suffice?
>> > No, because from observation, most people who reply to a digest don't
> change the Subject to a useful string. This would be disastrous for
> Last Call workflows in particular.
The categories proposed that would be on a list that would be digestable
would be (based upon what Barry wrote):
2. Announcements of new and updated WG charters & WG closures = 44
5. Announcements of new RFCs = 275
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
So, we'd need to not include Last Call Announcements in that list.
Then would it work for you?
Not if it ever leads me to receive a message with a subject like
Re: document-actions Digest, Vol 52, Issue 41
That one would take many times longer before I could hit delete than
Re: Document Action: 'Boring Stuff' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-boring-stuff-10.txt)
Spot on. Digests are dire, uninformative header, hard to find the real
content in, unsuitable Reply to.
By contrast, I think that Last Call announcements get it almost right.
The Subject line tells me whether or not I am interested, I only need
the body for the date (which I would like to be more prominent).
I suggested earlier that while Last Call should each have a separate
e-mail on some list, yet a weekly summary would cut by a factor of three
the traffic on whatever is the new list. I did not mean digest! rather a
customised e-mail taking the subject line of each Last Call announcement
and putting it on a separate line in the body
e.g.
Last Call: <draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04.txt> (Finding the
Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service) to Internet Standard
Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-15.txt> (Stream Control
Transmission Protocol) to Proposed Standard
Last Call: <draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-17.txt> (YANG
Modules describing Capabilities for Systems and Datastore Update
Notifications) to Proposed Standard
or, less expansive,
Last Calls week ending ....
<draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04.txt> to IS
<draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-15.txt> to PS
<draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-17.txt> to PS
PS: Proposed Standard
IS: Internet Standard
Tom Petch
A thing that I like about the digest option is that the archives (and IMAP)
would have the individual messages.
But in my experience people reply directly to the digest.
The bottom line is that people's workflows and email habits vary widely,
so there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
Brian
