Hi, Russ,
The only statement in this thread I don't agree with is
People seem to be forgetting that all I-D submissions used to
be processed an a person.
I am still remembering that time all too clearly. I suspect that anyone who
worked for the secretariat as that person remembers it even more vividly :-)
On everything else, I want to echo Dave's "cool", and John's "thanks".
Spencer
The automated tool is very new.
When the I-D were processed by hand, the cut-off was necessary
for the Secretariat to handle the spike of submissions just
prior to the meeting. Look at the statistics report by IETF
chair in their plenary presentations for the last few years --
the meetings cause a huge spike in I-D submissions. Remember
back when the I-D submissions were handled by hand, it could
be days after the submission that the document actually
appeared in the repository.
Now that we have the tool, it is a reasonable time to see if
we still need this cut-off rule. I have put the topic on the
agenda for the IESG discussions in Dublin.
Russ,
Thanks.
FWIW, it appears from various notes on this thread that we actually have
two separate cutoff rules, with one having effectively hidden the other.
One of those rules is the two and three week hard cutoff originally
imposed to protect the Secretariat, as you have described above. That
rule came with a "AD exception" procedure, which seems to have gotten lost
over the years ("lost" == "current ADs didn't know about it"). Whether
that exception model was a good idea or not relative to other things ADs
could do with their time is a separate question -- it did exist and, for
better or worse, it was _very_ rarely used.
The other rule is an RFC 2418 rule that says "should ... two weeks..."
(note lower-case "should"). It carries with it provision for exceptions
by WG chairs and some guidance as to whether those exceptions should be
granted.
Many of the recent comments in this thread (including, I fear, mine) have
confused the two. It appears to me that most of the suggestions could be
accommodated by looking at the first set of rules (the posting cutoffs)
only, either eliminating them entirely or cutting them to the point
needed to assure a level playing field for those who are forced into
manual posting by deficiencies in the automatic posting tool.
I see this an opportunity for evolution and incremental
improvement.
Indeed. And a very welcome and much appreciated one.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf