I believe that last calls must stay on this ietf list. Any last-call-only list must be *in addition* to the ietf list, with all announcements crossposted, and anyone sensitive to general discussion can subscribe to that instead. Last calls need wide exposure. (I'm acked in at least one RFC as a result of discussion on this list as a result of last call.) I'd go further and say that if you're contributing to an ietf workgroup, subscribing to ietf and ietf-announce should be mandatory for posting rights in that group. Sure, you can filter the mails to /dev/null, but getting a broad idea of what's going on is a good thing, no? I'm willing to bet that at least half of our design problems have resulted from people doing narrowly-focused work in only one group or area... Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ ________________________________________ From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Glen Zorn [glenzorn@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 08 June 2013 07:31 To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Best list for IETF last calls [was: Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx] On 06/08/2013 02:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail threads is to change the > Subject header when the subject changes. If you don't do that, > your mail is rather likely to get junked. > > I think that IETF last call threads should stay on the main IETF > discussion list. That is exactly the right place for them. Since I've requested (read "begged" ;-) for such threads to be moved to their own list on several occasions, I disagree again. > It's rather trivial to filter them into a dedicated folder; > I have one called 'lastcallsin', that also picks up most > WG Last Call threads, although those have less standardised > subject headers. This would appear to work consistently only as long as 'Rule 1' above is not followed. > > Brian > > On 08/06/2013 06:17, Juliao Braga wrote: >> +1 >> >> Em 07/06/2013 15:09, Ulrich Herberg escreveu: >>> I like the idea of a separate list for last calls. It would not solve >>> the issue of noise for all of us (and not reduce the overall amount of >>> emails), but it would separate general discussions from IETF LCs. I >>> have IETF emails filtered by mailing list into different IMAP folders, >>> and thus a separation could be useful for me. >>> >>> Ulrich >>