--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
On Jan 18, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
A possible approach would be to use the cutoff dates as deadlines
for drafts to be placed on the WG agenda - i.e. allow automated
posting to continue unabated, but only allow "late" drafts to be
discussed in the meeting if so agreed during a
On 2008-01-19 09:04, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Eric Gray wrote:
>
>> 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 someti
On Jan 18, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Eric Gray wrote:
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 beginn
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.
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:
Inline
On Jan 18, 2008, at 10:56 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> The current cutoff schedule for Internet Drafts dates from my
> time on the IESG (i.e., is ancient history). It was conditioned
> on the pre-IETF rush and the observation that the Secretariat,
> at the time, required a su
I propose that we eliminate global cutoff dates and let each WG
establish any cutoff dates it needs for its own purposes.
In general we strive to have the principal forum for discussion be WG
mailing lists as opposed to the physical meetings themselves. That
should be the default case. Most WGs
--On Friday, 01 February, 2008 15:31 -0500 Scott Brim
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose that we eliminate global cutoff dates and let each WG
> establish any cutoff dates it needs for its own purposes.
>
> In general we strive to have the principal forum for
> discussion be WG mailing lists
At Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:51:10 -0500,
John C Klensin wrote:
> (2) I think an early cutoff for individual documents that do not
> directly relate to IETF WG or Standards-track work is useful
> because it keeps the noise level down for all of us.So a
> WG-based cutoff might need to be accompanied b
On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:51 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> (3) Cullen's note emphasized the reading problems faced by ADs
> who are trying to stay on top of all of the documents in their
> areas. I think we need to be very careful about that, balancing
> permitting the ADs to function/manage effective
On 1 feb 2008, at 22:14, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> FWIW, I'm not an AD but I, like Cullen, try to read every draft for
> every WG I attend, so workload is a definite issue.
Exactly.
It's good to have a few weeks between the point where you need to have
your own drafts done and the point where you
12 matches
Mail list logo
