At Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:51:10 -0500, John C Klensin wrote: > (2) I think an early cutoff for individual documents that do not > directly relate to IETF WG or Standards-track work is useful > because it keeps the noise level down for all of us. So a > WG-based cutoff might need to be accompanied by a tool-enforced > cutoff about most non-WG documents. > > (3) Cullen's note emphasized the reading problems faced by ADs > who are trying to stay on top of all of the documents in their > areas. I think we need to be very careful about that, balancing > permitting the ADs to function/manage effectively and > efficiently with efficient functioning of WGs. Years ago, when > I was trying to do an AD job, I discovered that it was more > important to follow discussions than to read every revision of > every document, leaving it to the WGs and their leadership to be > sure that discussions were properly reflected in revisions and > to bring the issues to my attention when needed. But Cullen > may well work differently than I did (and his results may be > better), so it is important to be sure that we don't upset his > balance and that of others working the way he works. FWIW, I'm not an AD but I, like Cullen, try to read every draft for every WG I attend, so workload is a definite issue. More important, though, is latency. The typical pattern is to have no work done on the drafts in the 3 months after an IETF, then a whole rush of work done in the next 2-3 weeks, and then all the drafts are posted. The closer to the IETF the draft posting times get the harder it is to have any kind of reasonable email discussion of any draft... -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf