On 02/27/2013 01:49 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:18, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
>
>> routing around obstacles
> It turns out for most people the easiest route around is submitting in time.
>
> That is actually what counts here: how does the rule influence the behavior
of people.
>
> Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.)
+1.
As far as I can tell, the deadline actually serves the purpose of
getting people to focus on IETF and update their documents sufficiently
prior to the meeting, that it's reasonable to expect meeting
participants to read the drafts that they intend to discuss. And I say
this as someone who, as an author, has often found the deadline to be
very inconvenient.
And your evidence for this is .. what exactly? Yes, the deadline makes the
drafts show up a bit sooner, but I rather suspect that the overwhelming
majority of people don't bother to do much reading in the inverval. I certainly
don't.
And given the ready available tools to tell the reader what's changed I don't
need to. In almost all cases for -nn where nn > 00 I can check what's changed
in a few minutes, and I can do it in the context of the actual work being done.
I don't really have any objection to a -00 cutoff, but the second cutoff
is nothing short of asinine.
In any case, I personally have basically stopped caring about the deadline and
I encourage others to do the same. If I make the deadline fine, if not I post
the update somewhere else, done.
Ned