Ned,
While it seems otherwise, I don't think our suggestions are
really inconsistent. Let me summarize a way to combine the
radical and the more radical:
(1) Assume, right now and restoring an historical
principle, that an AD has the right and obligation to
waive the cutoff in situations that AD considers that it
is important enough to the process to just get a draft
posted to do so. I think we are agreed about that.
(2) As soon as convenient, initiate a discussion about
updating the posting cutoff rules so that they are
consistent with today's realities. I hope that the IESG
can lead that discussion, or find someone to lead it,
and that we can have a new plan in place well before
Minneapolis (it is too late to implement anything for
Dublin anyway). It would be a shame to have to initiate
a formal process experiment for this, but that option is
available too if the IESG doesn't feel like it wants to
take the lead but is receptive to a proposal for change.
I think it makes less difference whether I'm right and
_some_ sort of nominal cutoff is a good idea or you (and
maybe Spencer) are and we should just do away with the
cutoff than that, to paraphrase Scott Brim, we don't
[continue] to treat decade-old rules that have been
overtaken by events as dogma or Received Wisdom.
I do note that neither my "AD waiver" model nor completely doing
away with the cutoff require any substantive changes to existing
tools. It seems to me that is an advantages for one of those
models over anything more complex.
So, my suggestion to Jari that he just go ahead and get the
relevant draft posted still stands.
And I would like to not be having this discussion in late
October or early November. Put differently, I would take the
need for such a discussion at that time as a sign that our
process mechanisms are suffering from rather severe
constipation.
john
--On Saturday, 19 July, 2008 07:45 -0700 Ned Freed
<ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> (reposting the substance of an earlier remark which appears to
> have gotten lost)
>
>> ...
>
>> So, Jari, let me make a suggestion. Get the relevant draft
>> together, send it to the Secretariat, and ask (or tell) them
>> to manually post it and to do so RSN. If they won't do it,
>...
> I have a more radical suggestion: Let's do away with the
> cutoff thing entirely, replacing it if necessary with per-WG
> policies about what sort of advance notice needs to be given
> for a document revision to receive consideration.
>...
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf