Harald,
I had not submitted a WG-named draft close to the deadline for
some time, and obviously didn't notice earlier versions of the
"chair approval even a week further in advance" announcement. I
apologize for assuming it was a new problem and, hence, for
assuming that it occurred after the dis
On 20 Oct 2004, at 09:45, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On onsdag, oktober 20, 2004 09:31:06 +0100 Colin Perkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
that was what the procedure used to be - and someone had to keep
track
of the pile of I-D submissions for which there was no response (yet)
from the WG ch
On 19 Oct 2004, at 06:13, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 18. oktober 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair
submit the -00 document themselves,
I've discussed this option with the secretariat, and they thi
--On onsdag, oktober 20, 2004 09:31:06 +0100 Colin Perkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
that was what the procedure used to be - and someone had to keep track
of the pile of I-D submissions for which there was no response (yet)
from the WG chair. That extra load is what the secretariat has been
tr
On 20 Oct 2004, at 06:13, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On tirsdag, oktober 19, 2004 18:39:49 -0700 Vijay Devarapalli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
this sometimes doesnt work. for example, I submitted a 00 version
working group draft on Oct 18 draft at 2 am (PST). I dont think
the WG chair could h
John,
--On mandag, oktober 18, 2004 09:02:00 -0400 John C Klensin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Over the last few IETF meetings, processing has become more
automated, or the Secretariat has become more efficient in other
ways. The typical time to get an I-D posted other than in the
pre- and post-me
--On tirsdag, oktober 19, 2004 18:39:49 -0700 Vijay Devarapalli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hi Harald,
this sometimes doesnt work. for example, I submitted a 00 version
working group draft on Oct 18 draft at 2 am (PST). I dont think
the WG chair could have stayed up that late to send out the draf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Vijay" == Vijay Devarapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Vijay> this sometimes doesnt work. for example, I submitted a 00
Vijay> version working group draft on Oct 18 draft at 2 am (PST). I
Vijay> dont think the WG chair could have stayed up th
hi Harald,
this sometimes doesnt work. for example, I submitted a 00 version
working group draft on Oct 18 draft at 2 am (PST). I dont think
the WG chair could have stayed up that late to send out the draft
for me before the submissin deadline (6 am PST). :)
I prefer just cc'ing the WG chairs when
--On 18. oktober 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair
submit the -00 document themselves,
I've discussed this option with the secretariat, and they think this
(having the WG chair submit or forward the docu
Hi John,
John C Klensin wrote:
Henrik,
I'm aware of the tools team proposal. But I claim it
illustrates the problem. See below.
Yes, I thought you were - and I agree - continued below.
--On Tuesday, 19 October, 2004 01:03 +0200 Henrik Levkowetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
I don't have any in
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, scott bradner wrote:
> > If your "reduce the load enough that things can be
> > gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the
> > meetings" hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would
> > already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or
> >
--On Monday, 18 October, 2004 20:20 -0400 scott bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If your "reduce the load enough that things can be
>> gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the
>> meetings" hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would
>> already have had a review --in
> without changing the rules the closest we can get is two weeks
Personally I'd actually prefer 10 days, but two weeks is much better
then 4 weeks and is a reduction of no-draft-can-be-published time
from 30% to 15%.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "scott" == scott bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If your "reduce the load enough that things can be gotten out
>> faster will result in deadlines closer to the meetings"
>> hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would already hav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Pyda" == Pyda Srisuresh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pyda> Dont have a lot to add to the already nicely articulated
Pyda> comments below from John. However, I would like to know why
Pyda> this IETF meeting in DC is scheduled so soon after the l
> If your "reduce the load enough that things can be
> gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the
> meetings" hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would
> already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or
> the Secretariat and discussed with the community-- abou
Henrik,
I'm aware of the tools team proposal. But I claim it
illustrates the problem. See below.
--On Tuesday, 19 October, 2004 01:03 +0200 Henrik Levkowetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>> It seems to me that this is one of the reasons why discussion
>> of these proposals/plans with the co
Hi John,
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 18 October, 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snipped some text]
I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair
submit the -00 document themselves, as a placeholder for the
actual document. This can be done as
Dont have a lot to add to the already nicely articulated comments below from
John. However, I would like to know why this IETF meeting in DC is scheduled so
soon after the last one - barely 3 months from the last one. Added to this, the
dead-lines for the drafts are more conservative, leaving very
--On Monday, 18 October, 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John> "As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a
> John> filename beginning with "draft-ietf" must be
> approved by the John
John
Good rant!
I agree with each of your concerns, and ask too for discussion on what was
brought up in your message.
At 09:02 AM 10/18/2004 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
Hi.
Summary: Four weeks? When we sometimes run only three months
between meetings?
Some years ago, the secretariat and IESG a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> "As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a
John> filename beginning with "draft-ietf" must be approved by the
John> appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or
Hi.
Summary: Four weeks? When we sometimes run only three months
between meetings?
Some years ago, the secretariat and IESG agreed on an I-D
posting deadline about a week before IETF began, in the hope of
getting all submitted drafts posted before WGs needed them for
review and discussion. Prio
24 matches
Mail list logo
