Hi John,
John C Klensin wrote:
Henrik,
I'm aware of the tools team proposal. But I claim it
illustrates the problem. See below.
Yes, I thought you were - and I agree - continued below.
--On Tuesday, 19 October, 2004 01:03 +0200 Henrik Levkowetz
<henrik(_at_)levkowetz(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
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).
But you see, the secretariat workload has already, somehow, been
reduced to the point that we are clearing the queue well in
advance of the meetings, unlike a few years ago, when the
deadlines were set and we routinely went right up against the
meeting. If your "reduce the load enough that things can be
gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the
meetings" hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would
already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or
the Secretariat and discussed with the community-- about how
much closer the deadlines could be moved, followed by
implementation. Instead, we have acquired a new rule that
pushes the deadline even further out.
Well, firstly, I don't have such a hypothesis :-) To me it's
very clear that the I-D submission tool will provide the *option*
to move the deadlines more freely, but to actually move them back
is a completely separate step, governed by other mechanisms ,:-)
I didn't know that the secretariat workload had been reduced, and
that so is the case isn't necessarily a given conclusion from the
data I have - the current state may also be the result of more
secretariat manpower being brought to bear on the task now.
But if it is indeed the case that secretariat workload has already
been decreased I agree in your concern - it is not clear to me
why it would be needed to push back the deadline even further, as
has now been done.
I know that this is a little extreme, but, based on that
experience, it is equally reasonable to assume that, if fewer
cycles are required to process I-Ds before an IETF meeting,
someone will wake up and, without consulting the community about
priorities, decide it is useful to impose several _more_ process
steps, since there would then be time for them within the
current deadlines.
Don't know if it's *equally* reasonable ,:-) but it is worth
being on guard against, at least.
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.
Sure. But assuming that either a careful review of what is
"desirable" or any movement at all, will happen is, however
rational, not supported by recent facts or experience. The
creation of the tools is really independent from setting of the
deadlines.
I agree. Which has been my viewpoint all along. I carefully did
not say that having the tool will change the deadlines, I said it
will make it possible to move the deadlines. Actually doing
so is indeed an independent matter, worthy of attention.
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf