On 2/26/2013 11:47 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 02/26/2013 11:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 2/26/2013 11:23 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk <jmpolk(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Personally, I'd trust "date -u" much sooner than any random
person. Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC' Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST
2013 $
Requires a Unix like system...
Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably be left as an exercise
for the reader...
It could be posted on the Internet Draft submission tool page, including a
"countdown clock" too, if you really want useful ;-)
Then again, having these deadlines at all is a bit silly.
It just forces authors to "informally distribute" updates directly on the
list, and cuts off access to work that doesn't need to happen in sync with
an IETF meeting.
Something like "documents published less than two weeks before a WG session
cannot be discussed in this session" would be better. Also, "slides published
less than one week before a WG session cannot be used in this session".
That's fine, though it still puts minor mods in the same class as
complete revisions.
Maybe we need a two-tiered numbering system, e.g., major revs cannot
occur less than two weeks before a meeting where they will be discussed,
but minor mods are OK up to 48 hours in advance.
:-)
Joe