> Dave, > > It is pretty much never a good idea to have the mechanics of a process > > contain artificial constraints, as a means of implementing higher-level > > policies. > > > > If a working group is worried about documents getting read, they will > > impose their own deadlines or they will constrain their agenda. Having > > the Secretariat use an IETF-wide deadline for this purpose is > > Procrustean, to say the least. > This sort of constraint is a safe guard against run away working group > chairs attempting to ram through changes by silencing people who have > not read the latest draft that came out while people were traveling to > the event. In practive all this does is force groups to distribute drafts via other means. I've seen plenty of cases where the version of a draft discussed at a meeting isn't available as an I-D yet. In other words, the constraint doesn't appear to be an effective safeguard in practice. Dave has it right: This is simply a Procrustian annoyance. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf