On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:46 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
This is a serious question despite the way I'm about to ask it,
but, if we successfully did a split on that basis, wouldn't that
leave us an "IEFF Last Call" list and an "IETF Noise and
Whining" list? It also suggests something else: would it make
sense to do a three-way split:
I think this raises a good point, but I would modify the solution based on the current list description.
1) "It furthers the development and specification of Internet technology through discussion of technical issues"
* IETF Last Calls on technical specifications (including
technical A/S documents)
2) "it hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, and procedures"
* IETF Last Calls on procedural specifications (as
recent examples, that would include all of the
anti-harassment documents, all of the IASA2 work, and
any documents that arise out of the recent discussions
about recalls and recall eligibility)
* Everything else
So, I think there is an argument for keeping procedural RFCs and "everything else" on ietf@xxxxxxxx. I'm not sure how easy it would be to do that.
I do think email provides a nice escape hatch if there's an edge case where it's not clear which list is best: CC both lists. Hopefully, that will be rare.
thanks,
Rob
