Hi, I tend to agree with Brian on this. avri On 24-Jul-14 12:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I'm going to be contrarian. > > I think ietf@xxxxxxxx is *exactly* what we want for IETF last > calls. Most last calls are silent. Some trigger a small, > non-annoying amount of technical discussion. The remaining > ones cause mailstorms. Those are exactly the ones I, as an > IETF citizen, want to know about. They tell me that the IETF > is about to do something controversial, and I need to have > a careful look to see if I care. If I decide that I don't care, > it's trivial to ignore the thread. > > This essential feature would be lost if the last call traffic > was hidden in some place dedicated to the particular draft; > I'd never be aware that there was a controversy. > > To say that another way: a last call message on IETF-announce > would at most attract the attention of people who already care. > A last call mailstorm here will attract the attention of > people who ought to care, and slightly interrupt the viewing > experience of people who don't care. > > That said, I'm all for attempting to dissuade inappropriate > messages during such a mailstorm. But the mailstorm itself > has value. > > Brian > > >