In message <5626943E.6080800@xxxxxxxxx>, Brian E Carpenter writes: > On 20/10/2015 18:58, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > ... > > Drafts were expiring sometime on the 20th of October (in, one presumes, the US, because no timezone was given, and the IETF is very much a US org > anisation. I live in Australia, no timezone for expiry time given on these emails.) > > Agree that stating it precisely in UTC would not be a bad thing, but... > > > So I refreshed the draft ready to do the necessary six-month accounting. > > ...if the only reason to re-post a draft is the expiry, it isn't worth > reposting, IMHO. In fact it's a bit deceptive: people might think the draft > is still under development when it isn't. In some cases this is due to chairs not processing the document in a timely manner. I've had wg last call write ups take over a year on multiple documents (same working group, different sets of chairs) despite multiple reminders to the chairs. > > Only to discover that I-D submission had already closed at midnight UTC on the 19th > because of the upcoming IETF meeting. Which wasn't mentioned in the email. > > Er, does it actually matter to anybody if the draft is refreshed with the same content > and a different date two weeks later? Yes. A expired document is presumed to be abandoned. You send the wrong message by having a expired document. I think the point is that the reminder should have the next submission cut off date in it as well as the reopening date so people can plan the work appopriately and the reminder should be timely enough that you can do a update before the submission deadline. Any reminders due between the submission cut off and a week after the submission queue re-opens should be brought forward by the cut off interval plus 2 weeks. > > Why not state the earlier submission deadline as well as a hard limit? > > See previous comment. > > Brian > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx