Hi John, I had thought about the added time it would take to post a draft, which could be nerve wracking when posting at the deadline, but I figured this is the price we "pay" for added security (like taking our shoes off for airport security). If you can't get your authors to approve in time, you can always post with less authors and update it again after the meeting submission lockout expires. As for posting with fake email addresses, having a submitter do this shows an even more blatant attempt at fraud and I would submit a harsher "penalty" should be applied for this behavior. However, you are correct that the tool would not be foolproof and you would still need a procedure for fraud investigation and handling. You are right that authors are notified when a new draft is posted, but unfortunately it is after the fact with little recourse for winding back the clock, especially for those who filter their IETF email into a folder for catching up on much later. - Larry On 5/31/15 10:04 AM, "John Levine" <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>Isn't one way to deal with this to build additional mechanisms into the >>draft submittal confirmation procedure? > >When I suggested this a couple of weeks ago, people pointed out that >there are too many ways that the obvious approach, require all new >draft authors to approve posting, has its problems. It can interfere >with legitimate drafts (on meeting cutoff day one author stays at the >office to finish the draft, the others take off for the weekend) and >it's trivial to circumvent (use plausible fake webmail addresses.) > >We do automatically notify authors when new drafts are posted, which >should usually alert surprised authors to the problem. > >R's, >John