Well here we have a rule that seems to be codified so it has the exact
opposite of any rational effect.
Either don't have a cutoff at all or make it a requirement that all
materials be submitted in advance of the meeting.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:46 PM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hi Phillip,
At 11:31 AM 8/1/2011, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Over the weekend I attempted to determine the rules for discussion of
drafts at IETF meetings and was surprised to discover that they are not
actually written down anywhere (other than on the meetings page). As a
result we appear to have an anomalous situation in which an author who
misses the cut-off date for ID submissions is in fact entitled to sit on the
draft for two weeks and then submit when the ID queue re-opens.
I suggest that this is a sub-optimal state of affairs. I see two
solutions:
1) Codify the requirement that materials to be discussed at the meeting
must be submitted before the cut-off and that submissions made during
meetings are strictly limited to revisions occurring after and between WG
sessions. [Except in exceptional circumstances with AD approval]
2) Eliminate the 2 week cut off completely.
I'll start by quoting Scott Brim [1]:
"One generation's rule of thumb becomes the next generation's dogma.
The IETF should sit up and really think when someone suggests that
a process has become dogma."
Quoting Ned [2]:
"I'd much rather breach the sanctity of the rules by getting rid of
some of them entirely."
Quoting Russ [3]:
"When all of the Internet-Drafts were processed by Secretariat staff,
there was a huge workload concern. Now that the Internet-Draft
Submission Tool (IDST) is taking the bulk of the load, there are
resources to deal with these exceptions, as was just demonstrated."
Which was in response to John Klensin who said [4]:
"The original reason for those cutoffs -- even more important
than giving people time to read drafts -- was that the
submissions were overwhelming the Secretariat. Not only did
they have other things to do in the weeks before the meeting, it
was becoming unpredictable whether a draft submitted in advance
of the meeting would be posted early enough for the relevant WG
to look at it. The split between "new" and "revised" drafts was
another attempt to protect the Secretariat -- notions of having
to formally approve WG drafts came later."
And Dave said [5]:
"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."
Spencer Dawkins [6] quoted Section 7.1 of RFC 2418.
Pete Resnick was of the opinion [7] that:
"The cutoff is an arbitrary procedure to try (poorly IMO) to enforce
the 2418 rule."
I suggest that WG chairs stop asking the working group whether they have
read the draft as it is silly. It is an impossible task to keep up with the
flood of I-D that are submitted on Meeting Monday.
Regards,
-sm
1. msg-id: 48821469(_dot_)4050907(_at_)employees(_dot_)org
2. msg-id:
01MXC0962CLI00007A@mauve.**mrochek.com<01MXC0962CLI00007A(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
3. msg-id:
20080719191556.567F03A6A32@**core3.amsl.com<20080719191556(_dot_)567F03A6A32(_at_)core3(_dot_)amsl(_dot_)com>
4. msg-id:
2E1B2AB9703690B8E1EEBE90@p3.**JCK.COM<2E1B2AB9703690B8E1EEBE90(_at_)p3(_dot_)JCK(_dot_)COM>
5. msg-id: 48826DC0(_dot_)8000307(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net
6. msg-id:
013501c8ea6a$271e28a0$6501a8c0**@china.huawei.com<6501a8c0(_at_)china(_dot_)huawei(_dot_)com>
7. msg-id: p06250100c4a9226eac87@[75.145.**176.242]
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf