John Klensin wrote: > As a partial alternative, would it be possible to squeeze the > "comments by Feb 7, decision by February 15" schedule somewhat? Yes, I think the interval after Feb 7th could be squeezed by a few days. Our commitment (as Trustees) is to reach a decision and to communicate it to the community no later than February 15th. My personal hope is that we can reach consensus several days before the 15th, but certainly not before the 7th. February 7th the hard-coded end of the 30-day window for community review and comments. With respect to your other point: > Can the community safely assume that ... xml2rfc servers, submission > servers, the manual submission process, etc., are all up to the load > of having both the queue of documents that have been accumulating > since shortly after IETF 73 and the usual pre-IETF rush hitting > them at once? Good question! Thanks for asking. I'll ask our IAD to look into this and report back. Best Regards, Ed Juskevicius edj.etc@xxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] Sent: January 23, 2009 12:37 PM To: Ed Juskevicius; ietf@xxxxxxxx; wgchairs@xxxxxxxx; iab@xxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx; rfc-editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: 'Trustees'; 'Contreras, Jorge' Subject: Document posting schedule pragmatics (was: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your comments on revised proposed legend text to work-around the Pre-5378 Problem) Hi. I apologize for cluttering up these lofty discussions of IPR theory and statements with a question about getting work done, but... --On Friday, January 23, 2009 0:29 -0500 Ed Juskevicius <edj.etc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > Please recall that some I-D authors have experienced > difficulty implementing RFC5378 since it was published on > November 10, 2008. An example of the difficulty is summarized > below: > - an author wants to include pre-5378 content in a new > submission or contribution to the IETF, but >... > The Trustees will meet again in early February to decide on > whether to revise the Trust License Policy based on the >... > The Trustees > need to decide on whether to adopt the proposed legend text, > and then communicate our decision to you on or before February > 15th. The first I-D posting cutoff is March 2nd. Assuming that the Trustee's decision is "communicated" on February 15 and that it is clear enough to be immediately implemented, that leaves two weeks in which all of the new (00) documents that are presumably ready now (except for a bad case if IPR-induced-constipation) to get posted and three weeks for revised documents. Even those periods are likely to be somewhat shorter in practice unless the IAOC has arranged for various tool maintainers to be waiting, fingers poised over keyboards, for the decision and text on Sunday the 15th. Can the community safely assume that the Trustees (wearing their IAOC hats), the IAD, and the Secretariat have made plans to be sure that xml2rfc servers, submission servers, the manual submission process, etc., are all up to the load of having both the queue of documents that have been accumulating since shortly after IETF 73 and the usual pre-IETF rush hitting them at once? I would assume that such plans would include some fairly extensive load-testing of existing systems to determine whether additional servers, links, and staff assignments are needed... and adding and testing the needed facilities and arrangements RSN. The observation that, at present, we are running with one xml2rfc server does not inspire confidence if we expect it to be hit by a giant document glut (or even a "normal" pre-IETF glut). However, I'm equally concerned about the submission servers and back-end posting systems and anywhere else that a bottleneck could occur, not just that one. As a partial alternative, would it be possible to squeeze the "comments by Feb 7, decision by February 15" schedule somewhat? I think it is safe to assume that almost everyone in the community who is likely to be concerned about these issues is (and has been) watching the various lists and that few of us will be better able to make comments (or able to make better comments) in two weeks than we could, e.g., sometime next week. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf