Liaison Statement email copies does not include "To Group" field

[gloinul]

Describe the issue

Due to an error in a recently sent LS to 3GPP:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1806/

I have noted that the mail copy that the datatracker produces from the web form does not appear to include the "To Group" field. So below is the email version sent to 3GPP which was copied to the WG also:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/UWGrH8ix6lMtbL2bBVNDvaPLxfs/

As you can see there are no field "To Group: 3GPP". Unless the receiving body opens the HTML link they will not know which actual WG in the 3GPP organization this was intended. Thus making routing at the receiver harder.

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow the IETF's Code of Conduct

[rjsparks]

Is the request here to add "To Group: 3GPP" in the Subject of the message?

[gloinul]

Maybe, that was not what I was thinking of. I think in the email body after the subject or before the From: field.
A reason to not add it in subject is that this field may be expanded quite a lot.

Hade there not been an misstake done in this LS, the To Group: field should have said: 3GPP RAN3, 3GPP SA3.

[rjsparks]

I see. I agree that Subject isn't the right place.
If we just place it in the body how about making this change:
OLD

From: (a list of email-addresses)
To: (a list of email-addresses)
Cc: (a list of email-addresses)
Technical Contacts: (a list of email-addresses)
Purpose: (whatever the purpose is)

NEW

To: (list of groups the statement is intended for)
Purpose: (whatever the purpose is - such as "For information")

From: (a list of email-addresses)
To: (a list of email-addresses)
Cc: (a list of email-addresses)
Technical Contacts: (a list of email-addresses)

There's some potential for confusion given the use of To: to mean two different things - does visually separating them sufficiently signal the context needed to avoid that confusion?

[gloinul]

I think the difference of what is in those fields will make it clear. And the grouping separation will help. I also like moving Purpose up to be easier to see.

[rjsparks]

https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/pull/9432/files proposes changes to the email content based on the above discussion.

For https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1225/, this would have produced an email message starting with:

Title: Response to " Recommendation ITU-T G.8131/Y.1382 revision â Linear protection switching for MPLS-TP networks"
Submission Date: 2012-12-31
URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1225/

To: ITU-T-SG-15-Q9, ITU-T-SG-15-Q10, ITU-T-SG-15-Q12, ITU-T-SG-15-Q14
From: Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls)
Purpose: For information


Email Addresses
---------------
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
To: greg.jones@itu.int
Cc: tsbsg15@itu.int,steve.trowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com,ghani.abbas@ericsson.com,elear@cisco.com,scott.mansfield@ericsson.com,jdrake@juniper.net,rcallon@juniper.net,swallow@cisco.com,loa.andersson@ericsson.com,mpls@ietf.org,adrian@olddog.co.uk,stbryant@cisco.com
Response Contacts: loa.andersson@ericsson.com
Technical Contacts: rcallon@juniper.net, swallow@cisco.com, loa@pi.nu