On 10 Mar 2013, at 8:46, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 3/10/2013 8:27 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
I do but don't care. With my IETF hat on, the whole point of the cut-off is
to enforce a physical barrier to ensure we do not ever hear, "I posted this
draft yesterday, let's talk about it" in a work group. With my legal
services hat on, with the US joining the rest of the world with
first-to-file, those few weeks of publication could mean the difference
between a free and open standard and a NPE swooping in and attempting to tax
the industry.
If that were a problem for all working groups, all the time, it might make at
least some sense. But it isn't, so it doesn't.
It also entirely underestimates the ability of participants to generate new,
unreasonable demands...
Ultimately the problem you are using for justification is a matter of good
working group management.
Solve it with better management, not artificial barriers that are imposed on
everyone and that can be trivially routed around, albeit without the benefits
of using the I-D mechanism.
+1 (and apologies for the jet-lag-induced empty post)...
There's a big difference between a -01 revision of an individual draft which
substantially replaces the content of its -00, and a last-minute revision -22
of a long-standing working group draft that fixes a minor point that's been
well-discussed on the list with clear consensus for the change. A week before a
WG meeting, it's just as unrealistic to expect people to be able to discuss the
former if it's posted as it is to expect them _not_ to post the latter on a
private server somewhere and point to that in the discussion.
This seems like something that could be left to the discretion of the chairs on
setting the agenda for each WG meeting, as long as there's transparency in the
criteria that will be used to decide whether a recently-submitted draft can be
discussed on the agenda. An announcement from the chairs here would suffice,
from something simple like
"The traditional two-week period applies: drafts to be discussed in Berlin must
be submitted before Monday July 15",
or a slightly fuzzier:
"Priority in the working group agenda will be given to working group drafts
before individual drafts, then to draft revisions submitted earlier than later,
as we believe we can have a more productive discussion on work that more people
have had a chance to read."
Different WGs have different workflows, though, so allowing the chairs to do
this on a per-WG basis seems reasonable.
Cheers,
Brian