Fred,
This depends on what happens to the draft while waiting for
confirmation, and
whether or not the tools recognize the initial posting time/date as opposed to
the final
confirmation time/date.
I can see an argument for why the "posting time/date" would be the same
as
the final confirmation time/date - if nobody can see the draft until then
(which seems
to be a reasonable requirement, if you are trying to avoid accidentally adding
someone
as an author).
Otherwise, it would be possible to ambush a working group with a -00
draft that
makes the posting cut-off but is not available until the last possible moment.
All a person
would need to do is to hold off on confirming their authorship until then.
--
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
(fred)
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 8:43 AM
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List
Subject: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:16 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
<chris(_dot_)dearlove(_at_)baesystems(_dot_)com> wrote:
I've had more than one case where trying to hit a -00 (or other) deadline
with another author, in another timezone, doing an everyone signs off would
have missed the deadline. We may have reached "OK, I'm happy with those
edits, you make them and submit, I'm going to sleep" stage.
Well, as I said, the “confirm” response isn’t required to be instant. If one
files against a deadline and deals with the “confirmation” email after the
deadline, it is treated as acceptable - the *filing* was before the deadline. I
don’t see a reason that would change when multiple authors had to each confirm.