--On Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:42 PM -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
Russ Housley wrote:
When all of the Internet-Drafts were processed by Secretariat
staff, there was a huge workload concern.
,,,
I also agree that an AD should be able to get an I-D posted
after the cut-off date if it is "the right thing."
Russ,
I'm missing some bit of logic that I hope you can clarify:
1. The cut-off was put into place due to workload on the
Secretariat. The automated I-D has eliminated that bottleneck
problem.
2. Working groups manage their own load. The Secretariat
is not a factor nor is the cognizant AD for any other on-going
working group work.
So I'm not understanding why there is still a need for a
cut-off and for the ability to have an AD do "the right thing".
It would seem that the right thing is to remove the cutoff and
let each working group decide on what drafts will be worked on.
What am I missing, that explains retaining the cut-off?
Dave,
I'm (I trust obviously) not speaking for Russ, but there are
several advantages to having a well-defined point at which one
can know that (modulo exception cases) all of the drafts that
one should read before an IETF meeting starts are posted. They
include getting things ready for "airplane reading", evaluating
agendas, etc., as well as whatever decisions a WG might make
about what to consider. I discussed some of them in an earlier
note today. There are other issues and tradeoffs, of course,
but I think it is a little simplistic to translate "Secretariat
is no longer the bottleneck" into "no cutoff needed" (I do
believe that it can be translated into "the current cutoffs may
be too early", but I discussed that issue in my earlier note too.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf