Subject: RE: WG notifications of new IDs is causing problems

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:55:57 -0600

Russ

I'm only concerned about the new messages that start with

         "[<wg-name>] New Version Notification for (draft-X)"

I don't understand why the WG cannot be copied on announcements that 
have this Subject line?

         "[<wg-name>] I-D Action:draft-ietf-..."

There is no need for two types of announcements, and reading the 
filenames requires opening up each message.  This is especially bad 
when list members reply to messages that start with \

         "[<wg-name>] New Version Notification for (draft-X)"

Geopriv and SIPPING have a lot of of these right now, so this issue 
isn't just to one draft, it's to an entire class of message type - 
and I find it annoying and makes reading through the 150+ messages I 
get each day less efficient instead of more efficient *and* makes 
tracking threads nearly impossible.

James

At 02:31 PM 11/15/2007, Russ Housley wrote:
>James:
>
>When a new WG document, or an update of an existing WG document, is 
>posted, the posting is sent to the I-D Announce list, with a CC to 
>the WG mailing list.  I believe that this is the proper action since 
>not all IETF participants subscribe to the I-D Announce list.  The 
>CC to the WG mailing list has been the procedure for a very long 
>time.  This procedure is now part of the I-D Submission Tool.
>
>Another form of notification is sent by the I-D Tracker when a new 
>version of a document is posted.  That goes to a list of people 
>specified by the Area Director that is sponsoring the document.  It 
>is usually the authors, the WG Chairs, and the PROTO shepherd.  The 
>message also goe to any AD that is holding a DISCUSS ballot position 
>for the document that was updated.  It sounds like the AD added the 
>WG mail list to the set of recipients.
>
>What is the document?  We can remove the WG mail list.
>
>Russ
>
>
> >Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:37:34 -0600
> >To: [email-masked]
> >From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
> >Cc: [email-masked]
> >Subject: WG notifications of new IDs is causing problems
> >
> >Secretariat
> >
> >It appears the ID submission tool (or poster) started a practice
> >that's becoming a real pain in the behind in late September.  This
> >involves sending a notification to a WG that a new version of a WG
> >level document has been submitted.  For example, take a message with
> >the Subject line of
> >
> >         "[Geopriv] New Version Notification for (draft-X)"
> >
> >Unfortunately, on several lists I'm part of, individuals reply or
> >even start threads based on these messages. Most folks mailers, but
> >not all I imagine, do not show the (draft-X) part of the above
> >subject lines (hitting a line length limitation), making sorting and
> >even identifying messages real tough, if not impossible (short of
> >opening each and every one).  This is especially troublesome when
> >sorting threads on active lists.
> >
> >Further, these messages are essentially identical to your postings
> >with a Subject line of
> >
> >         "[Geopriv] I-D Action:draft-ietf-..."
> >
> >So I'm also confused why 2 messages are necessary.
> >
> >AS a specific example, look at the Geopriv archives. Of the last 20
> >messages on that list (from the last 3 days), half have the
> >"[Geopriv] New Version Notification for (draft-X)" Subject line, yet
> >there are several different threads among those messages.  This is
> >becoming increasingly noticeable as we go through the ID version
> >deadlines. I imagine next week this will be worse than this week.
> >
> >As chair (of TSVWG) and as an active individual participant of more
> >than 50 IETF lists, can I ask that you stop sending out WG
> >notification messages that have a Subject line starting with
> >"[<wg-name>] New Version Notification for (draft-X)".
> >
> >Thanks
> >James
> >TSVWG co-chair
> >
> >
> >

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:09:12 +0200

James, Russ,

> isn't just to one draft, it's to an entire class of message type - and
> I find it annoying and makes reading through the 150+ messages I get
> each day less efficient instead of more efficient *and* makes tracking
> threads nearly impossible.

I looked at geopriv and sipping archives; many of the messages in
recent weeks were sent by the authors themselves, eg.

  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg04649.html
  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg04665.html
  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg14735.html

But I also found cases where the submission tool sent the message:

   http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg04573.html
   http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg14726.html
 
Russ' theory was that this could be an error in the tracker's e-mail
notification
field. But at least for this draft (geopriv-revised-civic-lo) the data
seemed
correct. I also tested whether the tool used for deriving the addresses for
[email-masked] was somehow at fault, but
it seemed to list just the authors, as it should. Same for sipping-pending-
additions.

So, maybe this comes from the submission tool, an error in the secretariat's
internal database (that I can't see), or I missed something.

Jari

---

From: Michael Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:36:07 -0500

For a working group document submission, the submission tool send out  
following announcement/notifications:

1. I-D Action announcement to the I-D announcement list and wg  
mailing list.
2. A new version notification to the submitter and authors of the  
document. WG list gets cc'ed.
3. If the document has been requested for publish and evaluated by  
the IESG, a notification is sent to the shepherding AD and whomever  
the shepherding AD has indicated within the ID Tracker (WG mailing  
list is a default list in this field.)

Hope this message can clear some vagueness regarding the issue.

BTW, [email-masked] was cc'ed  
because a shepherding AD indicated this address in ID tracker.

Best regards,
Michael Lee,
IETF Secretariat.

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:48:41 -0600

The issue folks are having is with the cc'ing to the WG list for item
number 2, since the WG is notified in number 1, as well.  It is slightly
annoying, but when folks aren't paying attention and start a thread from
those emails without changing the Subject, the real problem that James
identified occurs.
 
Mary. 

________________________________

From: Michael Lee [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:36 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: Michael Lee; [email-masked]; Russ Housley; Fuller, Barbara;
Suleymanova, Dinara
Subject: Re: WG notifications of new IDs is causing problems

1. I-D Action announcement to the I-D announcement list and wg mailing
list.
2. A new version notification to the submitter and authors of the
document. WG list gets cc'ed.
3. If the document has been requested for publish and evaluated by the
IESG, a notification is sent to the shepherding AD and whomever the
shepherding AD has indicated within the ID Tracker (WG mailing list is a
default list in this field.)

Best regards,
Michael Lee,
IETF Secretariat.

	James, Russ,
	
	> threads nearly impossible.
	
	I looked at geopriv and sipping archives; many of the messages
in
	recent weeks were sent by the authors themselves, eg.

	
	
	But I also found cases where the submission tool sent the
message:

	
	Russ' theory was that this could be an error in the tracker's
e-mail
	notification
	field. But at least for this draft (geopriv-revised-civic-lo)
the data
	seemed
	correct. I also tested whether the tool used for deriving the
addresses for
	[email-masked] was somehow
at fault, but
	it seemed to list just the authors, as it should. Same for
sipping-pending-
	additions.
	
	So, maybe this comes from the submission tool, an error in the
secretariat's
	internal database (that I can't see), or I missed something.
	
	Jari

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:57:32 -0500

Michael,
 
can we simply shorten the subject line? It sounds like ~10 minutes
worth of work.
That would solve the immediate problem, while we continue debating how
many notices is approrpiate.
 
David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

  _____  

From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 5:49 PM
To: Michael Lee; Jari Arkko
Cc: [email-masked]; Fuller, Barbara; Russ Housley;
Suleymanova,Dinara
Subject: RE: WG notifications of new IDs is causing problems

The issue folks are having is with the cc'ing to the WG list for item
number 2, since the WG is notified in number 1, as well.  It is
slightly annoying, but when folks aren't paying attention and start a
thread from those emails without changing the Subject, the real
problem that James identified occurs.
 
Mary. 

  _____  

1. I-D Action announcement to the I-D announcement list and wg mailing
list.
2. A new version notification to the submitter and authors of the
document. WG list gets cc'ed.
3. If the document has been requested for publish and evaluated by the
IESG, a notification is sent to the shepherding AD and whomever the
shepherding AD has indicated within the ID Tracker (WG mailing list is
a default list in this field.)

Best regards,
Michael Lee,
IETF Secretariat.

James, Russ,

> isn't just to one draft, it's to an entire class of message type -
and

[email-masked] was somehow at
fault, but

Jari

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:26:00 -0600

Hi, Michael,

It would be helpful to shorten the subject line prefix, no matter where the new version notification in (2) is sent.

I would prefer that the new version notifications in (2) not be sent to the working group mailing list at all, 

- since the ID announcement is also sent to the working group mailing list within a minute or two (for the drafts I've submitted in the past 10 days), and

- since the ID announcement includes a URL for the ID, which the new version notifications do not include, so they aren't as useful as the ID announcements are.

Thanks,

Spencer
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mary Barnes 
  To: Michael Lee ; Jari Arkko 
  Cc: [email-masked] ; Fuller, Barbara ; Russ Housley ; Suleymanova,Dinara 
  Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:48 PM
  Subject: RE: WG notifications of new IDs is causing problems

  The issue folks are having is with the cc'ing to the WG list for item number 2, since the WG is notified in number 1, as well.  It is slightly annoying, but when folks aren't paying attention and start a thread from those emails without changing the Subject, the real problem that James identified occurs.

  Mary. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: Michael Lee [mailto:[email-masked]] 
  Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:36 PM
  To: Jari Arkko
  Cc: Michael Lee; [email-masked]; Russ Housley; Fuller, Barbara; Suleymanova, Dinara
  Subject: Re: WG notifications of new IDs is causing problems

  For a working group document submission, the submission tool send out following announcement/notifications: 

  1. I-D Action announcement to the I-D announcement list and wg mailing list.
  2. A new version notification to the submitter and authors of the document. WG list gets cc'ed.
  3. If the document has been requested for publish and evaluated by the IESG, a notification is sent to the shepherding AD and whomever the shepherding AD has indicated within the ID Tracker (WG mailing list is a default list in this field.)

  BTW, [email-masked] was cc'ed because a shepherding AD indicated this address in ID tracker.

  Best regards,
  Michael Lee,
  IETF Secretariat.

    James, Russ,

    Jari

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:01:27 +0100

> those emails without changing the Subject, the real problem that James

Exactly.

Please don't Cc: the WG list for item number 2.

	Henrik

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:22:45 -0500

This seems to be the source of the problem, #1 and #2 both include the WG
mail list, which is to notices for the same action.  Can we turn off
the WG CC on #2?

Russ

At 05:36 PM 11/15/2007, Michael Lee wrote:

For a working group document
submission, the submission tool send out following
announcement/notifications:

BTW,

[email-masked] was cc'ed because
a shepherding AD indicated this address in ID tracker.

Best regards,

Michael Lee,

IETF Secretariat.

James,
Russ,

and

notification

field. But at least for this draft (geopriv-revised-civic-lo) the
data

seemed

correct. I also tested whether the tool used for deriving the addresses
for

additions.

Jari

---

From: Michael Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:58:07 -0500

WG CC on #2 below has been turned off.

Regards,
Michael Lee,
IETF Secretariat.

On Nov 16, 2007, at 9:22 AM, Russ Housley wrote:

> This seems to be the source of the problem, #1 and #2 both include  
> the WG mail list, which is to notices for the same action.  Can we  
> turn off the WG CC on #2?
>
> Russ
>
>> For a working group document submission, the submission tool send  
>> out following announcement/notifications:
>>
>> the IESG, a notification is sent to the shepherding AD and  
>> whomever the shepherding AD has indicated within the ID Tracker  
>> (WG mailing list is a default list in this field.)
>>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:00:42 -0500

Thank you.

At 10:58 AM 11/16/2007, Michael Lee wrote:

WG CC on #2 below has been
turned off.

Regards,

Michael Lee,

IETF Secretariat.

This seems to be the source of
the problem, #1 and #2 both include the WG mail list, which is to notices
for the same action.  Can we turn off the WG CC on #2?

Russ

BTW,

Best regards,

Michael Lee,

IETF Secretariat.

James,
Russ,

and

notification

seemed

additions.

Jari

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:09:59 -0600

Thank you!

At 09:58 AM 11/16/2007, Michael Lee wrote:
>>><mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked] 
>>>was cc'ed because a shepherding AD indicated this address in ID tracker.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>Michael Lee,
>>>IETF Secretariat.
>>>
>>>><http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg04649.html>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg04649.html 
>>>>
>>>><http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg14735.html>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg14735.html 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg04573.html>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg04573.html 
>>>>
>>>><mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked] 
>>>>was somehow at fault, but