On 20/10/2015 18:58, l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk wrote:
...
Drafts were expiring sometime on the 20th of October (in, one presumes, the
US, because no timezone was given, and the IETF is very much a US
organisation. I live in Australia, no timezone for expiry time given on these
emails.)
Agree that stating it precisely in UTC would not be a bad thing, but...
So I refreshed the draft ready to do the necessary six-month accounting.
...if the only reason to re-post a draft is the expiry, it isn't worth
reposting, IMHO. In fact it's a bit deceptive: people might think the draft
is still under development when it isn't.
Only to discover that I-D submission had already closed at midnight UTC on
the 19th because of the upcoming IETF meeting. Which wasn't mentioned in the
email.
Er, does it actually matter to anybody if the draft is refreshed with the same
content
and a different date two weeks later?
Why not state the earlier submission deadline as well as a hard limit?
See previous comment.
Brian