--On Monday, 18 October, 2004 20:20 -0400 scott bradner
<sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> If your "reduce the load enough that things can be
>> gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the
>> meetings" hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would
>> already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or
>> the Secretariat and discussed with the community-- about how
>> much closer the deadlines could be moved,
>
> fwiw
>
> without changing the rules the closest we can get is two weeks
>
> see RFC 2418 section 7.1
>
> All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should
> be published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two
> weeks before a session starts.
But then it is violation of those rules to permit documents to
be submitted at 9AM ET on the morning of 25 October that apply
to a WG session starting at 9AM on 8 November, since they cannot
possibly be "published and available" (which I would construe as
including "announced") that quickly. The latest posting
deadline for "revision" docs has never been more than two weeks
out, modulo time zone corrections. So this RFC 2418 rule has
_always_ been ignored, and there has never (to my knowledge)
been any attempt to notify or engage the community in approving
the change. That probably makes it another IESG or Secretariat
policy in violation of written procedures, although one could
argue that the responsibility for enforcing that rule actually
belongs to the WG Chair when someone attempts to reference the
document.
I would note, however, that agendas for sessions at IETF are
rarely posted two weeks in advance. If one construed those as
"documents to be discussed", then we wouldn't even be able to
meet :-(
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf