Dear Jari;
On Jul 19, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I am in favor of relaxations in this area. I realize that new code
would be needed in the submissions tool, but I don't think it would
be too hard either. We already treat expirations differently
depending on the tracker state. I have not looked at the submission
tool code, but I would be surprised if it cannot access drafts
database and tracker contents.
I currently have several drafts in a state where the IESG, authors,
and the WG are talking about the changes needed to approve the
document. In one case we have a very long list of RFC Editor notes
that appear satisfactory. In theory we could approve the draft with
those, but I would like to use RFC Editor notes for minor
corrections, and this one is not... so a new draft would be
preferred. Yet it cannot be posted at this time. Having the new
draft would also make it easier to have a discussion with the WG,
because then the usual tools diffs etc would be available.
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler just to give the ADs the ability to
advance a draft during the block-out period, maybe through an email to
the Secretariat ?
They, of course, have to know about a draft getting upgraded in any of
the above situations, this would not require a tool change, and of
course if this were misused they are the ones who would have to face
the wrath of the IESG.
Regards
Marshall
So, my suggestion would be to add a change to our long list of tool
development tasks. In its simplest form, submissions should be
allowed even after the deadline has passed if tracker state >
pubrequest. Other, more complex policies might also be possible, but
they would need more discussion. For instance, chair decision,
allowing updates of drafts that have already been updated shortly
before, etc.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf