Hi John,
John C Klensin wrote:
Henrik,
I'm aware of the tools team proposal. But I claim it illustrates the problem. See below.
Yes, I thought you were - and I agree - continued below.
...--On Tuesday, 19 October, 2004 01:03 +0200 Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't have any input on exactly how, originated by whom, the current deadlines have come to be.
However, if we're starting to discuss the mechanics of what might be done to move the deadlines closer to the meetings again, I'd like to point out that the ietf tools team, as it's first task, has been formulating requirements for a tool to automate draft submission, so that secretariat workload can be eliminated or severely reduced as a factor in draft posting deadlines (and WG chair approval deadlines).
But you see, the secretariat workload has already, somehow, been reduced to the point that we are clearing the queue well in advance of the meetings, unlike a few years ago, when the deadlines were set and we routinely went right up against the meeting. 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, followed by implementation. Instead, we have acquired a new rule that pushes the deadline even further out.
Well, firstly, I don't have such a hypothesis :-) To me it's very clear that the I-D submission tool will provide the *option* to move the deadlines more freely, but to actually move them back is a completely separate step, governed by other mechanisms ,:-)
I didn't know that the secretariat workload had been reduced, and that so is the case isn't necessarily a given conclusion from the data I have - the current state may also be the result of more secretariat manpower being brought to bear on the task now.
But if it is indeed the case that secretariat workload has already been decreased I agree in your concern - it is not clear to me why it would be needed to push back the deadline even further, as has now been done.
I know that this is a little extreme, but, based on that experience, it is equally reasonable to assume that, if fewer cycles are required to process I-Ds before an IETF meeting, someone will wake up and, without consulting the community about priorities, decide it is useful to impose several _more_ process steps, since there would then be time for them within the current deadlines.
Don't know if it's *equally* reasonable ,:-) but it is worth being on guard against, at least.
We believe that the requirements are close to done, and hope that the tool can be produced and deployed fairly soon. This should make the draft posting deadlines a matter of deciding what is optimal for the community. The tool should make both posting and chair approval possible as close to the meeting dates as is found to be desirable.
Sure. But assuming that either a careful review of what is "desirable" or any movement at all, will happen is, however rational, not supported by recent facts or experience. The creation of the tools is really independent from setting of the deadlines.
I agree. Which has been my viewpoint all along. I carefully did not say that having the tool will change the deadlines, I said it will make it possible to move the deadlines. Actually doing so is indeed an independent matter, worthy of attention.
Henrik
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf