On 2009-02-13 21:15, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
Noel Chiappa wrote:
I think these (and the per-draft mailboxes others have mentioned) are
all steps in a long-term plan, with the eventual optimum system being the
web-based thing you mention.
What is exactly the problem we're trying to solve here?
Henk, at least in my mind it is *not* solving the outlier case of
an organised mail bombing; pretty much any solution that remains
in the IETF spirit of openness will be subject to some kind of bombing
(and probably should be, if we're serious about being an open
In my mind the problem is how to collect and classify all the comments
on a given draft, so that the authors, the WG, the IESG, and anyone
else who needs to, can review them all. Being able to do that easily
would be a significant benefit for the efficiency of document review.
and would help make our process more transparent.
I think most of us like to see LC comments related to the drafts that
they are somehow involved with (author, WG participant, etc). Posting
those comments to the ietf list takes care of that, without work or
effort from anybody.
Not so, if people disrespect the request to retain the subject header
of the Last Call message. I assure you from my time on the IESG, when
I was supposed to have an opinion about the consensus from every
Last Call, that the lack of fully automatic sorting of comments
was a major pain. It's even worse when the IESG or IAB needs to
review a document's history because of an appeal.
Most of the 250+ drafts that go last call every year, generate no
comments on the list.
And that's a problem in itself.
The TLS draft is an exception with 100's of
replies. However, I cannot remember any similar cases in the last
10 years. Pressing delete 100 times worked for me, that is a few
minutes of work in a 10 year period, in other words no work at all.
I agree completely; it's not the main problem.
Do we really want to introduce all kinds of complex procedures just
based on one incident?
No... as explained above.
Ietf mailing list