RE: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



DÁccord.

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:47 PM
> To: Eric Gray
> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 
> --On Friday, 18 January, 2008 13:18 -0600 Eric Gray
> <eric.gray@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Eric,
> 
> To be clear, I was not advocating doing away with the cutoff.  I
> think cutoffs are a good idea, for exactly the reasons you
> suggest and because they avoid any necessity for per-WG rules
> about deadlines to prevent a particularly nasty way of gaming
> the system.  I just want to be sure that the intervals we have
> been using are still appropriate.
> 
> > 	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.
> 
> Just for purposes of discussion (I do not have any strong
> positions on this other than a desire to have it reviewed), I
> think it makes a lot of sense to require a long lead time on new
> drafts in order that people have a way to consider new concepts,
> whether they want to attend particular WGs, etc.  Three weeks
> does not strike me as unreasonable for that purpose.   And the
> draft-transition exception you mention is already part of the
> rules.
> 
> However, in many WGs, we see a lot of work done in the weeks
> before an IETF meeting, both before and after the current
> posting deadline.  I think it is in our interest to have WGs
> looking at drafts that are as up-to-date as possible, consistent
> with everyone in the WG having a reasonable opportunity to read
> them before the actual meeting.  So I'm not sure that two weeks
> is optimal for revision drafts.  Perhaps the tradeoffs would
> work better at a week before, or perhaps at some other interval.
> I suspect that setting the revised draft cutoff much shorter
> than a week before the meeting would mean that some people would
> not be able to review them before beginning to travel to the
> meetings and that the Secretariat might not have time to
> manually process whatever needed to be manually processed, but I
> don't know.
> 
> I do not think it is either wise or useful to try to design the
> details of this on the IETF list (nor do I think you were
> suggesting that either) and hope my note does not set off a long
> thread.   I believe it is reasonable for us to ask the IESG to
> think about the issue, make a decision and tell us.   I'd prefer
> to hear about their reasoning, but I can live without even that.
> I just don't think it is reasonable to continue automatically
> with the current cutoffs when the reason for setting those
> particular cutoff values has largely disappeared.
> 
> And I wanted to mention the question on the IETF list precisely
> because I hope that this is not an appropriate subject for an
> RFC3933 experiment.
>  
>    john
> 
> 

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]