Hi John,
I had thought about the added time it would take to post a draft, which
could be nerve wracking when posting at the deadline, but I figured this
is the price we "pay" for added security (like taking our shoes off for
airport security). If you can't get your authors to approve in time, you
can always post with less authors and update it again after the meeting
submission lockout expires.
As for posting with fake email addresses, having a submitter do this shows
an even more blatant attempt at fraud and I would submit a harsher
"penalty"
should be applied for this behavior. However, you are correct that the
tool would not be foolproof and you would still need a procedure for fraud
investigation and handling.
You are right that authors are notified when a new draft is posted, but
unfortunately it is after the fact with little recourse for winding back
the clock, especially for those who filter their IETF email into a folder
for catching up on much later.
- Larry
On 5/31/15 10:04 AM, "John Levine" <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
Isn't one way to deal with this to build additional mechanisms into the
draft submittal confirmation procedure?
When I suggested this a couple of weeks ago, people pointed out that
there are too many ways that the obvious approach, require all new
draft authors to approve posting, has its problems. It can interfere
with legitimate drafts (on meeting cutoff day one author stays at the
office to finish the draft, the others take off for the weekend) and
it's trivial to circumvent (use plausible fake webmail addresses.)
We do automatically notify authors when new drafts are posted, which
should usually alert surprised authors to the problem.
R's,
John