John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 18 October, 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson
[snipped some text]
I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair
submit the -00 document themselves, as a placeholder for the
actual document. This can be done as soon as the WG believes
that the should exist.
That gets rid of the back-and-forth between chair, author
It seems to me that this is one of the reasons why discussion of
these proposals/plans with the community is important. It is
not just a matter of approval of a new rule (although that is
important), but the fact that the community can often come up
with clever solutions that the Secretariat, or IESG, on their
own, might not discover. I don't know if it would be worth the
trouble, but "either get WG chair pre-approval a week in advance
_or_ the WG Chair must submit the document" would seem to me to
be a much more reasonable rule than the current one, which
encourages individual-submission naming, followed by reissuing
of an identical document under the WG name, which makes
documents harder to track.
I don't have any input on exactly how, originated by whom, the
current deadlines have come to be.
However, if we're starting to discuss the mechanics of what might
be done to move the deadlines closer to the meetings again, I'd
like to point out that the ietf tools team, as it's first task,
has been formulating requirements for a tool to automate draft
submission, so that secretariat workload can be eliminated
or severely reduced as a factor in draft posting deadlines (and
WG chair approval deadlines).
The requirements are documented in draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission,
currently out in revision -04:
We believe that the requirements are close to done, and hope that
the tool can be produced and deployed fairly soon. This
should make the draft posting deadlines a matter of deciding what
is optimal for the community. The tool should make both posting
and chair approval possible as close to the meeting dates as is
found to be desirable.
Ietf mailing list