--On Monday, April 20, 2015 08:04 -0700 Doug Ewell
<doug@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From "New and Revived Drafts" this morning:
>...
> Is there a filter that the IETF can apply to defer the posting
> of drafts like this until the next April 1?
Doug,
There are, AFAICT, three options other than trying to reason
with the party involved in off list notes (something that I have
tried and assume others have too).
(1) Realize that the ability to post I-Ds and even advertise
them to the IETF list are, inevitably, an attractive nuisance
for some people. If so, the best way to deal with such
postings may be to ignore them entirely and certainly not to
quote from them or start discussion threads about them because
responding may encourage more such behavior.
(2) Try to enforce the naming conventions for I-Ds a bit, per
recent discussion on this list. I'm personally not in favor of
going very far in that direction, but it seems to me that two
fairly simple things would have potential for improving things
considerably: (i) If the second component of the proposed name
of an I-D is not "ietf" or some other known organizational
string, have the posting tool check that component against
author surnames; if it does not match one of those, force manual
postings and a corresponding sanity check. I wouldn't make a
big deal of the latter -- most of the value would come from
having a rule that would amount to "either pick an obvious name
or expect a delay in posting". Forcing more consistent and
predictable naming would make it easier, on an individual basis,
to ignore anyone with a perceived history of spurious postings
without having to make a formal IETF determination or restrict
the important "anyone may post an I-D" principle.
(3) I suppose the PR-action mechanism could be extended and used
to restrict individual I-D postings or at least postings about
such I-Ds and maybe announcements of them, but I hope we don't
need to go there, if only because of the huge amount of
community resources discussion of such postings consume.
john