On 20 Oct 2004, at 09:45, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On onsdag, oktober 20, 2004 09:31:06 +0100 Colin Perkins
that was what the procedure used to be - and someone had to keep
of the pile of I-D submissions for which there was no response (yet)
from the WG chair. That extra load is what the secretariat has been
trying to avoid during the rush.
Can't we just require the working group chairs to send approvals
the submission deadline? Much of the problem before was that there
definite cut-off date for approvals.
when was "before"?
there's been definite cut-off dates for approvals for at least 3 years
(see the deadline announcement messages).
(I think the secretariat has accepted some late approvals, though...)
Checking back, I see you're right about the approval deadlines,
although if I remember correctly the deadlines were a lot less firm in
The main issue, though, is that having the approval deadline a week
before the submission deadline causes problems, as John enumerated in
his "rant". In an ideal world, authors would know the drafts they were
planning to submit in plenty of time, and they'd tell the working group
chairs so approval can be given. In practice, and despite several
reminders sent to the working group lists, I've seen several cases
where the early approval deadline caused drafts to be rejected. That
doesn't help the IETF process.
Ietf mailing list