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 little time for the draft authors. Thanks. regards, suresh --- John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Prior to that rule, the last drafts to > arrive either slipped through the cracks or were posted after we > had started meeting, which did no one any good. > > As the load of incoming drafts increased, still with a > completely manual process, the posting deadline was shifted back > another week, to be two weeks before meetings began, and then a > rule was imposed (for which I fear I'm at least partially > responsible) requiring that initial-version drafts be posted yet > a week earlier -- three weeks out. The theory behind the latter > was the load continued to rise and that initial versions often > took longer to process and confirm than second and subsequent > versions, so it made sense to let the additional time burden > fall on them. > > Such deadlines, considerably in advance of IETF meetings, are an > impediment to objectives we claim for the standards process -- > opportunities for people to get as much work as possible done > outside the face to face meetings, and documents in hand that > are timely enough that people who do not attend meetings in > person can effectively express their comments. > > 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-meeting rush has dropped to one working day and > has sometimes even been less. And, during the rush, the queue > has often cleared early enough that consideration of shortening > the deadlines/ lead time would be in order. > > Instead, a new rule has apparently crept into the posting > deadlines, with no community discussion or announcement other > than in those deadline announcements. The rule, in this > meeting's form, is that > > "As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a > filename beginning with "draft-ietf" must be approved by > the appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or > announced. WG Chair approval must be received by > Monday, October 11 at 9:00 AM ET." > > First of all, this isn't "as always". The rule requiring > explicit WG Chair approval is fairly recent. But, more > important, we now have a situation in which WG drafts -- > presumably the most important documents for the face to face > meetings-- now require formal naming, authorization, and > approval a full four weeks before the first IETF meeting > sessions. Remembering that we have sometimes had meetings as > close as three months apart, but even with four months being the > nominal separation, this is a _big_ chunk of time. On the three > month schedule, and allowing a couple of weeks post-meetings for > things to stabilize, people to get caught up, and new > discussions to start, it could give a WG only six weeks to have > a discussion that could generate a new document for discussion > and agree on that document before cutoffs impose, at least, > names that make those documents harder to find and track. > > As we continue to discuss problems and issues that get in the > way of our getting effective work done, it seems to me that this > is a new one that should be added to the list. > > Also, in the context of administrative reorganization, I would > find it helpful, and others might too, to understand where this > new requirement came from: > > (1) If from the Secretariat by unilateral action, it is > perhaps a symptom of difficulties with the Secretariat > that require some change in models. > > (2) If from the IESG, it perhaps should be examined as a > procedural change made without an announcement to the > community and opportunity for comment -- precisely the > type of change that the "July14" draft was intended to > prevent in the future by providing a more efficient way > to get such changes made _with_ community involvement > and (at least default) authorization. > > Finally, if four weeks is really necessary, I suggest that we > are in need of firm rules about minimum meeting spacing. > > john > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ===== _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf