Ned, On 27/02/2013 19:21, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> On 02/27/2013 01:49 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> > On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:18, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> > >> >> routing around obstacles >> > It turns out for most people the easiest route around is submitting >> in time. >> > >> > That is actually what counts here: how does the rule influence the >> behavior of people. >> > >> > Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.) >> +1. > >> As far as I can tell, the deadline actually serves the purpose of >> getting people to focus on IETF and update their documents sufficiently >> prior to the meeting, that it's reasonable to expect meeting >> participants to read the drafts that they intend to discuss. And I say >> this as someone who, as an author, has often found the deadline to be >> very inconvenient. > > And your evidence for this is .. what exactly? Yes, the deadline makes the > drafts show up a bit sooner, but I rather suspect that the overwhelming > majority of people don't bother to do much reading in the inverval. I > certainly > don't. Just to present another view, I certainly do. I agree that this is more important for -00 drafts, and that looking at the diffs *may* be sufficient for updated drafts. However, with hundreds of documents coming down the pipe shortly before the meeting, I firmly believe that the two deadlines are essential in order to achieve any kind of systematic triage and decide what needs careful reading. I think many of us have a wide range of interests that make this triage important. Brian