At Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:51:10 -0500,
John C Klensin wrote:
(2) I think an early cutoff for individual documents that do not
directly relate to IETF WG or Standards-track work is useful
because it keeps the noise level down for all of us. So a
WG-based cutoff might need to be accompanied by a tool-enforced
cutoff about most non-WG documents.
(3) Cullen's note emphasized the reading problems faced by ADs
who are trying to stay on top of all of the documents in their
areas. I think we need to be very careful about that, balancing
permitting the ADs to function/manage effectively and
efficiently with efficient functioning of WGs. Years ago, when
I was trying to do an AD job, I discovered that it was more
important to follow discussions than to read every revision of
every document, leaving it to the WGs and their leadership to be
sure that discussions were properly reflected in revisions and
to bring the issues to my attention when needed. But Cullen
may well work differently than I did (and his results may be
better), so it is important to be sure that we don't upset his
balance and that of others working the way he works.
FWIW, I'm not an AD but I, like Cullen, try to read every draft for
every WG I attend, so workload is a definite issue.
More important, though, is latency. The typical pattern is to have no
work done on the drafts in the 3 months after an IETF, then a whole
rush of work done in the next 2-3 weeks, and then all the drafts are
posted. The closer to the IETF the draft posting times get
the harder it is to have any kind of reasonable email discussion
of any draft...
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf