Tony Hansen tony@xxxxxxx
John C Klensin wrote:
The notion that new documents were required to be posted a week earlier than updated ones seemed like a good idea at the time (and I bear some of the blame) because the secretariat was spending much more processing, and rule-verification time on the new ones than on the updates. But then we introduced all of this other baggage associated with metadata and semantics and, at the same time, the secretariat stopped doing significant checking of _documents_. Whether your WG's strategy of just leaving everything as a individually-named draft is a good general principle or just an effective workaround for an administrative problem, it seems to me that we shouldn't have procedures that put significant barriers in the way of new WG drafts. As you put it, renaming an existing document, or producing a closely-coupled revision of it, should not advance the posting deadline from two weeks to a month.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf