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.
FWIW, my recollection is that this wasn't the main reason. The main reason was
an (IMO misguided and ultimately couterproductive) attempt to have all the
documents available for review before the meeting.
Regardless, the reason for the rule was put in place is really irrelevant at
this point.
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.
This point is key. A large, busy WG dealing with lots of complex and
contentious documents may want to have a very rigid policy about what drafts
get considered at a meeting, when and how they can be revised, etc. And they
should be allowed to do just that.
But by the same token, a small group with a few well-agreed on documents has no
need for any of this. Such groups are only inconvenienced by such rules.
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.
And when it is or isn't appropriate to allow revisions.
What am I missing, that explains retaining the cut-off?
Frankly, I think it is more about trusting groups to be able to manage
themselves than anything else.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf