Well said. A mail storm at least gets me to see what the fuss is all about. e.g.; the http "prefer:safe" header and know I am aware of possible work areas. The nullmx proposal is another where MTA vendors have to be their faith on the draft author and others that say there is mom problems with this. As a side related note, I think the recent trend for fast tracking of documents can and does contribute to conflicts, i.e. lower quality, not enough review, etc. -- Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com > On Jul 24, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> 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 > >