On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 09:44:15 AM George, Wes wrote: > > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > > Scott Kitterman > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:42 PM > > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today > > > > How does that relate to working groups that aren't meeting? > > [WEG] Signal to noise ratio. I (and I assume others) use the IETF's RSS feed > to see all new drafts when they are posted. This is in order to have a > fighting chance to see drafts I might care about that happen in WGs that I > am not an active participant in, both to help me see if there are other WG > lists I need to subscribe to or if there are meetings I should attend as a > "tourist", or direct feedback to the authors prior to IETF LC. New drafts > posted for WGs that aren't meeting (and while I'm at it, throwaway > placeholder -00 drafts with no content) help contribute to the crush of > drafts to sift through, because it's not readily apparent based on the RSS > summary or the draft itself whether the WG is meeting. Add me as one more > +1 in support of a quiet period to give me a chance to catch up on draft > review before the meeting. If you want a quiet period, stop looking at the feed. If, as I' and others have suggested, submissions are still blocked for WG that are meeting, then anything in the feed after the cutoff is unrelated to your meeting preparations. > > It was silly I had to rush to post a draft on Monday for a WG that's not > > meeting. > > [WEG] Yes it was silly you had to rush, because if the WG isn't meeting, > there's no reason why you couldn't have simply waited until after the > moratorium elapsed, or posted it well prior to the inevitable rush of work > that precedes every meeting. Though alternatively it should be possible to > have the system continue accepting submissions and only make them public at > the expiration of the posting moratorium. It was rush in the sense that I'd have preferred to wait another day or two for feedback on a few points. It wasn't a rush job in the sense of rushing to prepare a draft. As it is, we have a good (IME anyway) draft that resolves a number of issues and is a solid foundation for moving on to address our remaining issues. Waiting to post it would have only slowed the progress of the WG. There are natural places in the work of a WG to post an updated draft. For WG that aren't meeting, IETF meeting draft cut offs should not affect that. It's not like the list of WG that are meeting aren't known well in advance of the cut off. Scott K