On Aug 1, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > On Aug 1, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> I think removing the cutoff is the right approach here. >> >> I'd prefer that some date remain on the list of important meeting dates >> to remind ourselves that revisions should be in in time for people to >> read them. > > If memory serves, the original purpose of the cutoff was to avoid overtaxing the resources of the Secretariat in the period immediately prior to IETF meetings. But it has also come in handy for ADs and others who feel the need to keep up with large numbers of documents from a variety of working groups. I wouldn't blame any AD or WG chair for imposing a "no drafts submitted after the cutoff can be discussed at the meeting" rule. It's one of the tools that assists with the volume. Not discussing documents which have not been socialized even if they did make the deadline is another. While I'm sure consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, having global default deadlines is of great assistance while pursuing work across multiple groups and areas. > Keith > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf