https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=saratoga&activeDrafts=on on the plus side, the draft tools seem to recognise that the tool is closed, so these drafts that expired after it was shut haven't actually expired yet... Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 11:29 AM To: joelja@xxxxxxxxx; marka@xxxxxxx; brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: email reminders say when a draft expires, but not that you can't submit? > 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. exactly. Give advance warning, get more drafts updated in a timely manner for meetings. I mean, six months ago I submitted drafts before the expiry date and IETF meeting deadline, and now, six months later, it's after the meeting deadline, so the meeting's... er, slightly earlier in the cycle? (in the case of http://saratoga.sf.net/ experience is slowly shaking out and improving nuances of draft text, and I'm learning that implementing complex transport protocols from scratch is a very slow process. No need to push a slightly updated draft through specially for Japan - it's not an exception.) Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of joel jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 10:03 AM To: Mark Andrews; Brian E Carpenter Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: email reminders say when a draft expires, but not that you can't submit? The draft deadline is to provide for a break between the time of submission and the meeting proper. a lot of work has to be done to agendas, reading and so on in the interceeding two weeks. Nevertheless we have an established system for exception handling so if for whatever reason a updated draft really needs to be posted in the next two weeks, ask the responsible AD, and it will be addressed. On 10/20/15 3:38 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > 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 >>