On 10 Mar 2013, at 8:46, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/10/2013 8:27 AM, Eric Burger wrote: >> I do but don't care. With my IETF hat on, the whole point of the cut-off is to enforce a physical barrier to ensure we do not ever hear, "I posted this draft yesterday, let's talk about it" in a work group. With my legal services hat on, with the US joining the rest of the world with first-to-file, those few weeks of publication could mean the difference between a free and open standard and a NPE swooping in and attempting to tax the industry. > > > If that were a problem for all working groups, all the time, it might make at least some sense. But it isn't, so it doesn't. > > It also entirely underestimates the ability of participants to generate new, unreasonable demands... > > Ultimately the problem you are using for justification is a matter of good working group management. > > Solve it with better management, not artificial barriers that are imposed on everyone and that can be trivially routed around, albeit without the benefits of using the I-D mechanism. +1 (and apologies for the jet-lag-induced empty post)... There's a big difference between a -01 revision of an individual draft which substantially replaces the content of its -00, and a last-minute revision -22 of a long-standing working group draft that fixes a minor point that's been well-discussed on the list with clear consensus for the change. A week before a WG meeting, it's just as unrealistic to expect people to be able to discuss the former if it's posted as it is to expect them _not_ to post the latter on a private server somewhere and point to that in the discussion. This seems like something that could be left to the discretion of the chairs on setting the agenda for each WG meeting, as long as there's transparency in the criteria that will be used to decide whether a recently-submitted draft can be discussed on the agenda. An announcement from the chairs here would suffice, from something simple like "The traditional two-week period applies: drafts to be discussed in Berlin must be submitted before Monday July 15", or a slightly fuzzier: "Priority in the working group agenda will be given to working group drafts before individual drafts, then to draft revisions submitted earlier than later, as we believe we can have a more productive discussion on work that more people have had a chance to read." Different WGs have different workflows, though, so allowing the chairs to do this on a per-WG basis seems reasonable. Cheers, Brian