Fred, This depends on what happens to the draft while waiting for confirmation, and whether or not the tools recognize the initial posting time/date as opposed to the final confirmation time/date. I can see an argument for why the "posting time/date" would be the same as the final confirmation time/date - if nobody can see the draft until then (which seems to be a reasonable requirement, if you are trying to avoid accidentally adding someone as an author). Otherwise, it would be possible to ambush a working group with a -00 draft that makes the posting cut-off but is not available until the last possible moment. All a person would need to do is to hold off on confirming their authorship until then. -- Eric -----Original Message----- From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred) Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 8:43 AM To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List Subject: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts > On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:16 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <chris.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I've had more than one case where trying to hit a -00 (or other) deadline with another author, in another timezone, doing an everyone signs off would have missed the deadline. We may have reached "OK, I'm happy with those edits, you make them and submit, I'm going to sleep" stage. Well, as I said, the “confirm” response isn’t required to be instant. If one files against a deadline and deals with the “confirmation” email after the deadline, it is treated as acceptable - the *filing* was before the deadline. I don’t see a reason that would change when multiple authors had to each confirm.