Re: [dispatch] Placeholder Drafts to Circumvent Deadlines (was Re: Comment on draft-kaplan-dispatch-gruu-problematic-00)

[Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

Ahh - sorry for the confusion - it's not a "placeholder" in the sense of empty boilerplate - more like I wanted to tidy it up a bit before announcing it because I'm a nit-picker.

I'm not asking for any meeting time for this topic - I just wanted to get it in before IETF-79 because I had promised I would submit such a draft at the face-to-face meeting of Martini in Maastricht.

-hadriel

On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

> Perhaps I'm being naïve, but I would suspect an author calling their own 
> draft a "placeholder" actually puts a pretty bright line around it.
> 
> More to the point: if you have something together by the -00 deadline 
> that is sufficient to foster discussion, there's no real rush to get the 
> i's dotted and the t's crossed by the -01 deadline. Just hold off on the 
> examples, references, and other polish until after the meeting. On the 
> other hand, if it's not in good enough shape that people can use it as 
> the basis of a technical conversation, it is exactly equivalent to an 
> empty placeholder.
>