Well here we have a rule that seems to be codified so it has the exact opposite of any rational effect.
Either don't have a cutoff at all or make it a requirement that all materials be submitted in advance of the meeting. On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:46 PM, SM <s...@resistor.net> wrote: > Hi Phillip, > > At 11:31 AM 8/1/2011, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> Over the weekend I attempted to determine the rules for discussion of >> drafts at IETF meetings and was surprised to discover that they are not >> actually written down anywhere (other than on the meetings page). As a >> result we appear to have an anomalous situation in which an author who >> misses the cut-off date for ID submissions is in fact entitled to sit on the >> draft for two weeks and then submit when the ID queue re-opens. >> >> I suggest that this is a sub-optimal state of affairs. I see two >> solutions: >> >> 1) Codify the requirement that materials to be discussed at the meeting >> must be submitted before the cut-off and that submissions made during >> meetings are strictly limited to revisions occurring after and between WG >> sessions. [Except in exceptional circumstances with AD approval] >> >> 2) Eliminate the 2 week cut off completely. >> > > I'll start by quoting Scott Brim [1]: > > "One generation's rule of thumb becomes the next generation's dogma. > The IETF should sit up and really think when someone suggests that > a process has become dogma." > > Quoting Ned [2]: > > "I'd much rather breach the sanctity of the rules by getting rid of > some of them entirely." > > Quoting Russ [3]: > > "When all of the Internet-Drafts were processed by Secretariat staff, > there was a huge workload concern. Now that the Internet-Draft > Submission Tool (IDST) is taking the bulk of the load, there are > resources to deal with these exceptions, as was just demonstrated." > > Which was in response to John Klensin who said [4]: > > "The original reason for those cutoffs -- even more important > than giving people time to read drafts -- was that the > submissions were overwhelming the Secretariat. Not only did > they have other things to do in the weeks before the meeting, it > was becoming unpredictable whether a draft submitted in advance > of the meeting would be posted early enough for the relevant WG > to look at it. The split between "new" and "revised" drafts was > another attempt to protect the Secretariat -- notions of having > to formally approve WG drafts came later." > > And Dave said [5]: > > "It would seem that the right thing is to remove the cutoff and let > each working group decide on what drafts will be worked on." > > Spencer Dawkins [6] quoted Section 7.1 of RFC 2418. > > Pete Resnick was of the opinion [7] that: > > "The cutoff is an arbitrary procedure to try (poorly IMO) to enforce > the 2418 rule." > > I suggest that WG chairs stop asking the working group whether they have > read the draft as it is silly. It is an impossible task to keep up with the > flood of I-D that are submitted on Meeting Monday. > > Regards, > -sm > > 1. msg-id: 48821469.4050...@employees.org > 2. msg-id: > 01MXC0962CLI00007A@mauve.**mrochek.com<01mxc0962cli000...@mauve.mrochek.com> > 3. msg-id: > 20080719191556.567F03A6A32@**core3.amsl.com<20080719191556.567f03a6...@core3.amsl.com> > 4. msg-id: > 2E1B2AB9703690B8E1EEBE90@p3.**JCK.COM<2e1b2ab9703690b8e1eeb...@p3.jck.com> > 5. msg-id: 48826dc0.8000...@dcrocker.net > 6. msg-id: > 013501c8ea6a$271e28a0$6501a8c0**@china.huawei.com<6501a...@china.huawei.com> > 7. msg-id: p06250100c4a9226eac87@[75.145.**176.242] > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
