On 16-Mar-24 10:17, Pete Resnick wrote:
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?
As far as I recall, it was originally intended to ensure that in the face-to-face meeting of each WG, people had all read the same version of each I-D. As hacks to bypass the posting deadline have emerged (with github PRs only being the latest hack), this has become less and less effective. Maybe that battle has now been lost. However, we should consider two other effects of the deadline: 1. Negative: A ridiculously large number of drafts are posted within ~72 hours, as Carsten pointed out recently**. So anybody who tries to track the IETF very broadly is swamped three times a year. 2. Positive: People are deadline-driven. If we didn't have the deadline two weeks before the meeting, the ridiculous number of drafts would be posted... today!
Can the IESG organize that discussion somewhere?
For example, at ietf@xxxxxxxx, since it seems highly on-topic here. ** https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/BXXyyODzUZq2sPaucVQcuBHxgBY/ Brian
