I invoke the end to end argument. The working groups know best whether they will consider late contributions. Working groups already go around the deadlines when they want to anyway, and some publish even stronger deadlines, or exclude drafts for other reasons. The draft process level cutoff does a partial job that sometimes gets in the way - a classic e2e situation. Let the draft process be nice and simple and straightforward, without unnecessary bling. Scott On Aug 1, 2011, at 17:47, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Speaking for myself, I *highly* value the existing twin cutoff dates. > It makes it possible to perform triage on the drafts before the meeting, > and to read a reasonable number of them that seem important with some care. > > Allowing drafts to be posted right up to the start of the meeting would > make any kind of systematic triage impossible, so I would end up reading > drafts at random - or more likely, sitting back and waiting to be spoon-fed > the PowerPoint. > > Bad idea, which would detract from the effectiveness of WG sessions. > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf