ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

2004-10-18 12:45:08


--On Monday, 18 October, 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson
<mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ottawa(_dot_)on(_dot_)ca> wrote:

"John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes:
    John>     "As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a
    John> filename beginning with "draft-ietf" must be
approved by the     John> appropriate WG Chair before they can
be processed or     John> announced.  WG Chair approval must
be received by Monday,     John> October 11 at 9:00 AM ET."

    John> First of all, this isn't "as always".  The rule
requiring     John> explicit WG Chair approval is fairly
recent.  But, more     John> important, we now have a
situation in which WG drafts --     John> presumably the most
important documents for the face to face     John> meetings--
now require formal naming, authorization, and

  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
and secretariat.

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.

    John> As we continue to discuss problems and issues that
get in the     John> way of our getting effective work done,
it seems to me that     John> this is a new one that should be
added to the list.

    John> Also, in the context of administrative
reorganization, I would     John> find it helpful, and others
might too, to understand where     John> this new requirement
came from:

  I would like answers to the same question.
  I will say that having the rather early deadline means, as a
submitter that I have to get my work done sooner, and this
leaves *me* more time to read documents before the meeting.

But this extra week won't, in practice.  If it prevents posting
the document with the "draft-ietf-WGNAME" form, it can still be
posted as an individual submission.  That just makes the
documents harder to find and track.

   john



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf