DÁccord. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson
> -----Original Message----- > From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:47 PM > To: Eric Gray > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates > Importance: High > > > > --On Friday, 18 January, 2008 13:18 -0600 Eric Gray > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > John, > > > > Your description of the reasons for having the draft sub- > > mission dead-lines may agree with original thinking that went > > into setting them, initially. However, there were collateral > > benefits that the new automated submission process helps to > > improve - but does not eliminate. > > > > For the people who participate in a fair number of working > > groups in the IETF, requiring early posting allows for a > > greater likelihood that they will be able to at least skim > > each new draft sometime before setting up their laptop at the > > beginning of each meeting in which that draft will be > > discussed. > > Eric, > > To be clear, I was not advocating doing away with the cutoff. I > think cutoffs are a good idea, for exactly the reasons you > suggest and because they avoid any necessity for per-WG rules > about deadlines to prevent a particularly nasty way of gaming > the system. I just want to be sure that the intervals we have > been using are still appropriate. > > > Moreover, having a week longer grace period for subsequent > > submissions also makes sense from this same perspective - > > because it is usually the case that there is less new material > > to absorb in a -01 or subsequent version than there was in a > > -00 version. Not always, but usually. One exception is when a > > draft becomes a working group draft - which means it becomes a > > -00 version with virtually no change from a previous (often a > > -03 or -04) version. > > Just for purposes of discussion (I do not have any strong > positions on this other than a desire to have it reviewed), I > think it makes a lot of sense to require a long lead time on new > drafts in order that people have a way to consider new concepts, > whether they want to attend particular WGs, etc. Three weeks > does not strike me as unreasonable for that purpose. And the > draft-transition exception you mention is already part of the > rules. > > However, in many WGs, we see a lot of work done in the weeks > before an IETF meeting, both before and after the current > posting deadline. I think it is in our interest to have WGs > looking at drafts that are as up-to-date as possible, consistent > with everyone in the WG having a reasonable opportunity to read > them before the actual meeting. So I'm not sure that two weeks > is optimal for revision drafts. Perhaps the tradeoffs would > work better at a week before, or perhaps at some other interval. > I suspect that setting the revised draft cutoff much shorter > than a week before the meeting would mean that some people would > not be able to review them before beginning to travel to the > meetings and that the Secretariat might not have time to > manually process whatever needed to be manually processed, but I > don't know. > > I do not think it is either wise or useful to try to design the > details of this on the IETF list (nor do I think you were > suggesting that either) and hope my note does not set off a long > thread. I believe it is reasonable for us to ask the IESG to > think about the issue, make a decision and tell us. I'd prefer > to hear about their reasoning, but I can live without even that. > I just don't think it is reasonable to continue automatically > with the current cutoffs when the reason for setting those > particular cutoff values has largely disappeared. > > And I wanted to mention the question on the IETF list precisely > because I hope that this is not an appropriate subject for an > RFC3933 experiment. > > john > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
