Subject: [apps-discuss] Another use case for a per-recipient header field: Opened IESG discussions

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:31:47 +0200

I like that new feature of posting IESG positions CC to the WG mailing
list.  It eases navigation through posts about a given I-D, making ML
archives more complete.

Monday, Pete said it is a matter of waiting ten minutes instead of five
before replying to such posts.  That is often implicit in the header:
Recipients in the "To:" field are expected to reply soon, while those in
"Cc:" may want to think twice.  The only problem is when there are so
many different kinds of recipients that they can hardly be grouped into
two groups (three, if you count Bcc:).  That issue can be solved with a
new header field, similar in syntax to RRVS.  E.g.:

Think-Before-Reply:  [email-masked]; 10 minutes

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:45:58 -0700

Hi Alessandro,
>Think-Before-Reply:  [email-masked]; 10 minutes

My alternative would be to have these messages go to the moderation queue.  :-)

I like what you said above.  I doubt that expecting people to use the 
"To:" and "Cc:" fields correctly will work in practice.  There was 
this experiment where "The IESG <[email-masked]>" was used in the 
"Cc:" field.  The people who replied to the message did not remove 
that email address.

One of the cases is a comment (not a DISCUSS) from an Area Director 
(e.g. 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg09963.html 
).  In my opinion replies to such messages do not have to be copied 
to [email-masked].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy