Maurice Zenarosa Technology Department Lynwood Unified School District ietf-request@xxxxxxxx wrote: >If you have received this digest without all the individual message >attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list >subscription. To do so, go to > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get >MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option >globally for all the list digests you receive at this point. > > > >Send Ietf mailing list submissions to > ietf@xxxxxxxx > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ietf-request@xxxxxxxx > >You can reach the person managing the list at > ietf-owner@xxxxxxxx > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: A modest proposal for Friday meeting schedule > (Spencer Dawkins) > 2. Re: Drafts Submissions cut-off (SM) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:10:52 -0500 >From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx>, "John C Klensin" > <john@xxxxxxx> >Cc: IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: A modest proposal for Friday meeting schedule >Message-ID: <FBFC03EF62E7437BB9051CB99EA1FED4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > >Peter, > >> A side benefit is that the IESG/IAB could have a lunch meeting on Friday >> (as opposed to the current breakfast meeting) and cover all the hot >> topics from the week (not the week minus Friday). >> >> /psa > >I agree with your point here, and add that the joint IAB/IESG Friday session >isn't only a BOF report session, it's "hot spots, however defined" - we've >usually at least SEEN all the BOFs by Friday breakfast, but that doesn't >mean we've seen all the hot spots ;-) > >Spencer > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:46:49 -0700 >From: SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx> >Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: Drafts Submissions cut-off >Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20110801172353.0696f868@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > >Hi Phillip, >At 11:31 AM 8/1/2011, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >>Over the weekend I attempted to determine the rules for discussion >>of drafts at IETF meetings and was surprised to discover that they >>are not actually written down anywhere (other than on the meetings >>page). As a result we appear to have an anomalous situation in which >>an author who misses the cut-off date for ID submissions is in fact >>entitled to sit on the draft for two weeks and then submit when the >>ID queue re-opens. >> >>I suggest that this is a sub-optimal state of affairs. I see two solutions: >> >>1) Codify the requirement that materials to be discussed at the >>meeting must be submitted before the cut-off and that submissions >>made during meetings are strictly limited to revisions occurring >>after and between WG sessions. [Except in exceptional circumstances >>with AD approval] >> >>2) Eliminate the 2 week cut off completely. > >I'll start by quoting Scott Brim [1]: > > "One generation's rule of thumb becomes the next generation's dogma. > The IETF should sit up and really think when someone suggests that > a process has become dogma." > >Quoting Ned [2]: > > "I'd much rather breach the sanctity of the rules by getting rid of > some of them entirely." > >Quoting Russ [3]: > > "When all of the Internet-Drafts were processed by Secretariat staff, > there was a huge workload concern. Now that the Internet-Draft > Submission Tool (IDST) is taking the bulk of the load, there are > resources to deal with these exceptions, as was just demonstrated." > >Which was in response to John Klensin who said [4]: > > "The original reason for those cutoffs -- even more important > than giving people time to read drafts -- was that the > submissions were overwhelming the Secretariat. Not only did > they have other things to do in the weeks before the meeting, it > was becoming unpredictable whether a draft submitted in advance > of the meeting would be posted early enough for the relevant WG > to look at it. The split between "new" and "revised" drafts was > another attempt to protect the Secretariat -- notions of having > to formally approve WG drafts came later." > >And Dave said [5]: > > "It would seem that the right thing is to remove the cutoff and let > each working group decide on what drafts will be worked on." > >Spencer Dawkins [6] quoted Section 7.1 of RFC 2418. > >Pete Resnick was of the opinion [7] that: > > "The cutoff is an arbitrary procedure to try (poorly IMO) to enforce > the 2418 rule." > >I suggest that WG chairs stop asking the working group whether they >have read the draft as it is silly. It is an impossible task to keep >up with the flood of I-D that are submitted on Meeting Monday. > >Regards, >-sm > >1. msg-id: 48821469.4050907@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >2. msg-id: 01MXC0962CLI00007A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >3. msg-id: 20080719191556.567F03A6A32@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >4. msg-id: 2E1B2AB9703690B8E1EEBE90@xxxxxxxxxx >5. msg-id: 48826DC0.8000307@xxxxxxxxxxxx >6. msg-id: 013501c8ea6a$271e28a0$6501a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >7. msg-id: p06250100c4a9226eac87@[75.145.176.242] > > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > >End of Ietf Digest, Vol 39, Issue 13 >************************************ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf