Ralph, I think I've already indicated why I (and others)
believe that systematically posting raw DISCUSSes to lists
would be the wrong move.
Brian
On 2007-01-15 20:43, Ralph Droms wrote:
Following up on that, I suggest a requirement that any DISCUSSes be posted
to that mailing list, along with conversation/resolution of the DISCUSSes.
I would very much like to see those last steps out in the open.
Only drawback to separate mailing list is that it requires active
involvement to get hooked into the last call discussion...
- Ralph
On 1/15/07 2:37 PM, "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500
John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that
is Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps
one whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any
follow-ups until the document is either published or finally
rejected. If there were a WG, then the WG list should be a
proper subset of that list, anyone commenting during the Last
Call should be added to it, and others could be added on request.
Actually, I think it's an excellent idea. Tracking Last Call comments
was always difficult, since the email tended to end up in several
different folders and wasn't archived elsewhere.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf