IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Question about pre-meeting document posting deadlines for the IESG and the community

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 23 March 2024 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183DAC14CEFD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.707
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fQyTitiDRFXu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC624C14F73E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.117.84.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 42NNnwfC018022 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1711237812; x=1711324212; i=@elandsys.com; bh=a0QPejTFZ0cQP+3C3WC5Ik6l67BLceOoXWvZc4UKuy8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=VSxePT64fpEEYC8YrCvqHrLVEgtq0qgijQYUfV2M2EfktdK5uXOHIV+AYYRN8hAYJ 8hLEpF2NrVO8K71tJlCJdefdsJ8/LsIp+8fPF4gnLhDdCJuvpYZXLiNIpA8H4iKVEU udajw5vrLH32s+CeV94waPf3R3JrM5q78wITsHKI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20240323154539.127fbdb8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:49:06 -0700
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Question about pre-meeting document posting deadlines for the IESG and the community
In-Reply-To: <240d0bf6-36e8-410d-8f86-2069dfc16f52@network-heretics.com>
References: <7826C4F13FA874CD79459A4B@PSB> <65A7921B-2A05-439A-976C-226560C5E7F4@strayalpha.com> <e0702d8a-cea5-4928-b571-98442ccd4f29@petit-huguenin.org> <6d0c6b07-2fc3-496c-ba66-dc40cbf46df8@dfn.de> <69EE71C9-C42B-49A6-BC0D-508F799DB68E@tzi.org> <1d301b86-c994-4a9c-810c-9a42e12a0ad8@network-heretics.com> <53C617FA98D84931861C1F59@PSB> <85D994BF-5E89-437B-821C-12DE93C403B3@episteme.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20240322143647.10ef96f8@elandnews.com> <569FBECE-E637-4B2A-86C5-4F7B7AEC333E@episteme.net> <7F1502637EB78EE7032F4384@PSB> <6.2.5.6.2.20240323004217.115aeb28@elandnews.com> <240d0bf6-36e8-410d-8f86-2069dfc16f52@network-heretics.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9j7kWS9wEO4PkDtYVvLQgIz_qv0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 23:50:20 -0000

Hi Keith,
At 08:48 AM 23-03-2024, Keith Moore wrote:
>A decision made a day before a meeting doesn't allow enough time to 
>see whether there would be complaints.

You are correct.

If I am not mistaken, you commented about WG homogeneity.  Some WGs 
work somewhat differently, e.g. some use RFC 8874.  The people 
showing interest in their deliverables seem okay with that. Let's say 
that I have not showed any interest in the deliverables.  I could not 
find a good reason to impose a change in work practice.

There are several rules which allow for exceptions.  It's useful to 
have that or else you end up having to look the other way to cater 
for genuine cases.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email