ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: MARID back from the grave?

2005-02-24 14:08:49
Of course, the rule about -00 drafts could be modified to allow them to be posted on the followup date IF and ONLY IF they are now a WG draft AND they've been previously published as an individual submission.

        Tony Hansen
        tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com

John C Klensin wrote:
The notion that new documents were required to be posted a week
earlier than updated ones seemed like a good idea at the time
(and I bear some of the blame) because the secretariat was
spending much more processing, and rule-verification time on the
new ones than on the updates.  But then we introduced all of
this other baggage associated with metadata and semantics and,
at the same time, the secretariat stopped doing significant
checking of _documents_.  Whether your WG's strategy of just
leaving everything as a individually-named draft is a good
general principle or just an effective workaround for an
administrative problem, it seems to me that we shouldn't have
procedures that put significant barriers in the way of new WG
drafts.  As you put it, renaming an existing document, or
producing a closely-coupled revision of it, should not advance
the posting deadline from two weeks to a month.

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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>