John, Your description of the reasons for having the draft sub- mission dead-lines may agree with original thinking that went into setting them, initially. However, there were collateral benefits that the new automated submission process helps to improve - but does not eliminate. For the people who participate in a fair number of working groups in the IETF, requiring early posting allows for a greater likelihood that they will be able to at least skim each new draft sometime before setting up their laptop at the beginning of each meeting in which that draft will be discussed. Moreover, having a week longer grace period for subsequent submissions also makes sense from this same perspective - because it is usually the case that there is less new material to absorb in a -01 or subsequent version than there was in a -00 version. Not always, but usually. One exception is when a draft becomes a working group draft - which means it becomes a -00 version with virtually no change from a previous (often a -03 or -04) version. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:06 PM > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates > > Hi. > > The current cutoff schedule for Internet Drafts dates from my > time on the IESG (i.e., is ancient history). It was conditioned > on the pre-IETF rush and the observation that the Secretariat, > at the time, required a sufficiently long time to get drafts > posted in the pre-meeting rush that, unless there was a two-week > cutoff, we couldn't reliably have all expected documents in hand > prior to the start of the meetings. > > Splitting the "new" and "revised" drafts was a further attempt > to compensate when the load built up enough that the choices > were between such a split and moving the submission deadline for > _all_ I-Ds back even further. The conclusion was that a split > was desirable because a three-week cutoff for revisions would > seriously interfere with WGs getting work done in the run-up to > IETF meetings. > > With the automated posting tools typically getting I-Ds posted > in well under an hour and a tiny fraction of the documents being > handled manually, the original reasons for the submission > cutoffs no longer apply. It is still reasonable, IMO, to have a > cutoff early enough to permit people to receive and read > documents before departing for the meetings, but it seems to me > that criterion would require a cutoff a week (or even less) > prior to the meeting, not two or three weeks. Other models > about giving people time to read might suggest leaving the "new > document" cutoff at three weeks before the meeting, but seeing > if we could move the "revision" cutoff considerably closer to > the meetings. > > I don't necessarily object to retaining the current two and > three week posting deadlines, but I'd like to know that the IESG > has done a careful review of those deadlines and their > applicability to the current environment and concluded that they > are still appropriate, rather than having the secretariat retain > them simply on tradition and autopilot. > > thanks, > john > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf