https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=saratoga&activeDrafts=on
on the plus side, the draft tools seem to recognise that the tool is closed, so
these drafts that expired after it was shut haven't actually expired yet...
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> on behalf of
l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk
<l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 11:29 AM
To: joelja(_at_)bogus(_dot_)com; marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org;
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: email reminders say when a draft expires, but not that you can't
submit?
I think the point is that the reminder should have the next submission
cut off date in it as well as the reopening date so people can plan
the work appopriately and the reminder should be timely enough that
you can do a update before the submission deadline.
Any reminders due between the submission cut off and a week after
the submission queue re-opens should be brought forward by the cut
off interval plus 2 weeks.
exactly. Give advance warning, get more drafts updated in a timely manner for
meetings.
I mean, six months ago I submitted drafts before the expiry date and IETF
meeting deadline, and now, six months later, it's after the meeting deadline,
so the meeting's... er, slightly earlier in the cycle?
(in the case of http://saratoga.sf.net/ experience is slowly shaking out and
improving nuances of draft text, and I'm learning that implementing complex
transport protocols from scratch is a very slow process. No need to push a
slightly updated draft through specially for Japan - it's not an exception.)
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> on behalf of joel jaeggli
<joelja(_at_)bogus(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 10:03 AM
To: Mark Andrews; Brian E Carpenter
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: email reminders say when a draft expires, but not that you can't
submit?
The draft deadline is to provide for a break between the time of
submission and the meeting proper. a lot of work has to be done to
agendas, reading and so on in the interceeding two weeks. Nevertheless
we have an established system for exception handling so if for whatever
reason a updated draft really needs to be posted in the next two weeks,
ask the responsible AD, and it will be addressed.
On 10/20/15 3:38 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <5626943E(_dot_)6080800(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>, Brian E Carpenter
writes:
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 org
anisation. 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.
In some cases this is due to chairs not processing the document in
a timely manner. I've had wg last call write ups take over a year
on multiple documents (same working group, different sets of chairs)
despite multiple reminders to the chairs.
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?
Yes. A expired document is presumed to be abandoned. You send the
wrong message by having a expired document.
I think the point is that the reminder should have the next submission
cut off date in it as well as the reopening date so people can plan
the work appopriately and the reminder should be timely enough that
you can do a update before the submission deadline.
Any reminders due between the submission cut off and a week after
the submission queue re-opens should be brought forward by the cut
off interval plus 2 weeks.
Why not state the earlier submission deadline as well as a hard limit?
See previous comment.
Brian