Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 03 December 2012 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 2384121F8931 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:24:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UmrLtMILWJg5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:24:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24EC221F8938 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:24:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=657; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1354559093; x=1355768693; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=BXqnqliSjAQUJA2cjalQmpjTP4skVtav5MwljSONZG8=; b=iUc4Q1jUJ2c0ykaK4SJLfvpFkpTXzHu2FpUVpcilW9Zxhhg5WvCY2Ho+ ZKgmS7VsaQPZWlI/C8agl48G+AyBNcHE8ganpshcWUYrOfNtOEa9G0lIf 288UQDGQEB7RYkckP9t47aZd8wVZm20R/vMIKPC11J8T/4Ye34gTFEZ6l 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAOLtvFCtJXG//2dsb2JhbABEwAEWc4IeAQEBAwE6NAsFCwIBCCIUEDIlAgQODYgCBr5CjECDYGEDpkiCcoIh
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6915"; a="148824088"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2012 18:24:49 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qB3IOncS025459 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:24:49 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.22]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 12:24:48 -0600
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
Thread-Topic: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
Thread-Index: AQHNznUT4KPQFPu7A0q0AeejhJah/pgHzpwA
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:24:48 +0000
Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B6F5FA4@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD5923033897C9BF@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <CALaySJLT=6RTZahqB1LO_Aw=7sAMiyrXK=xacwrBgLieZhqeDw@mail.gmail.com> <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD59230338A657EC@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121129105444.0b8d3400@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121129105444.0b8d3400@resistor.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.120]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <675F36C1B4D79A45BE1492BDA8999C0C@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:24:54 -0000

On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:03 PM, SM wrote:

> According to some RFC:
> 
>  "All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published
>   and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
>   a session starts."
> 
> If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions during the week a meeting is held. 

Not sure I agree with that. A draft submitted during the indicated week isn't up for discussion that week, but it may easily be the start of a mailing list discussion for a subsequent meeting, or it may be an update to a draft as an outcome of discussion. I see both pretty regularly.