--On Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:07 PM -0400 Russ Housley
<housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> wrote:
People seem to be forgetting that all I-D submissions used to
be processed an a person. The automated tool is very new.
When the I-D were processed by hand, the cut-off was necessary
for the Secretariat to handle the spike of submissions just
prior to the meeting. Look at the statistics report by IETF
chair in their plenary presentations for the last few years --
the meetings cause a huge spike in I-D submissions. Remember
back when the I-D submissions were handled by hand, it could
be days after the submission that the document actually
appeared in the repository.
Now that we have the tool, it is a reasonable time to see if
we still need this cut-off rule. I have put the topic on the
agenda for the IESG discussions in Dublin.
Russ,
Thanks.
FWIW, it appears from various notes on this thread that we
actually have two separate cutoff rules, with one having
effectively hidden the other. One of those rules is the two and
three week hard cutoff originally imposed to protect the
Secretariat, as you have described above. That rule came with
a "AD exception" procedure, which seems to have gotten lost over
the years ("lost" == "current ADs didn't know about it").
Whether that exception model was a good idea or not relative to
other things ADs could do with their time is a separate question
-- it did exist and, for better or worse, it was _very_ rarely
used.
The other rule is an RFC 2418 rule that says "should ... two
weeks..." (note lower-case "should"). It carries with it
provision for exceptions by WG chairs and some guidance as to
whether those exceptions should be granted.
Many of the recent comments in this thread (including, I fear,
mine) have confused the two. It appears to me that most of the
suggestions could be accommodated by looking at the first set of
rules (the posting cutoffs) only, either eliminating them
entirely or cutting them to the point needed to assure a level
playing field for those who are forced into manual posting by
deficiencies in the automatic posting tool.
I see this an opportunity for evolution and incremental
improvement.
Indeed. And a very welcome and much appreciated one.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf