On Dec 8, 2024, at 10:02 AM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It appears that touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>>>> I'd like us to get rid of the "expires in six months" myth.
> I'm sure I am not the only person here who has a script that increments the version number
> and resubmits a draft. While it only takes about 15 seconds, it strikes me as performative
> silliness. If there's stuff to change in a draft and it might be of interest to other
> people, I'll update it.
Agreed. It’s not those 15 seconds. Is that, multiple by 10, staggered over the calendar, and includes navigating near continuous changes to the submission interface as well as the additional silliness of closing the ID submission window before - but not during - IETFs.
Takes me quite a bit more than 15 seconds to refresh the drafts. More pointless makework.
If we want to fix anything with real impact, let’s start with killing off that window. Everyone end-runs around it (posting drafts elsewhere) for documents being discussed, and it serves no purpose for docs not being discussed.
+1
It can be worse than what it is supposed to prevent. I had one case where someone having agreed to discuss merging two proposals during the WG meeting at an IETF instead ambushed me in the meeting with an update to their draft.
As with any security issue, they are really easy to solve if you ignore all the other issues. I cannot for the life of me see how allowing someone to submit a draft hours before a WG meeting doesn't negate the whole point of the two week rule.
Trying to make people behave decently with rules and procedures really doesn't work.
