Agreed. We really need to have a bit of a general re-think on what we
really want out of these rules instead of (IMO) silly point-fixes that
don't really address the issue. Re-opening the queue on Sunday is
completely counter-productive if the point was not to have new versions
just before the f2f. (Similarly, the current proposal to remove the I-D
expiry date, which I agree is anachronistic and not serving its original
purpose, is another attempt at a simple point fix that does not address
the original reason those dates existed.)
Can we have a go at why we want these mechanisms in the first place
instead of making arbitrary changes? Can the IESG organize that
discussion somewhere?
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
On 16 Mar 2024, at 6:37, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
On 3/15/24 1:13 PM, touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
FWIW, opening the queue the week of the IETF only means that updates
are released during the IETF itself, rather than up to 2 weeks
earlier.
That, coupled with other workarounds (posting drafts to mailing lists
or other download areas) suggests that the 2-week rule doesn’t
really accomplish much.
IMO, WG chairs can just enforce this by saying that issues not placed
in docs before that date will not be discussed. Locking the posting
mechanism is just a hurdle to jump.
Yes.
Another related issue is sending slides largely ahead of time, but the
chair waits the last minute to post them, thus depriving people of the
time to ponder questions and comments. I just cancelled my
presentation when that happened to me. Conversely, I probably should
say on the mic that I would have commented or asked questions on a
presentation, but there was not enough time to think about it. But it
could be worse: slides could be posted after the presentation (it
happened at least once).
Joe
—
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com
On Mar 15, 2024, at 12:26 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi.
For many, many, years we have had a cutoff for posting I-Ds
about two weeks before an IETF meeting starts. That cutoff was
established to give people time to read documents (especially
because, predictably, many documents would be posted just before
it), figure out which WG meetings they needed to attend, prepare
comments, etc. We are now seeing pull requests that alter
substantive parts of documents posted on Github within a short
time before IETF starts and during the window when new or
revised I-Ds are not allowed without special circumstances and
specific permission from ADs.
Allowing that seems to contradict, or at least seriously weaken,
the principle of having documents available well in advance of
meetings. If they are announced only to the mailing list of the
relevant WG(s) (and sometimes not even that widely), it seems to
me that they impede both WG meeting discussions in which
everyone has the same starting points and openness to IETF
participants who have not signed up for the WG mailing list
(newcomers included).
Is the IESG considering some guidance on this subject or is it
considered unnecessary?
As an almost-separate question, if the "real" version of an I-D
that is expected to be discussed in meetings and on mailing list
is the the draft plus the cumulative effect of pull requests
(some by other than the listed authors), should that be more
clear and reflected in the datatracker?
thanks,
john
--
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
