Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Russ,

The only statement in this thread I don't agree with is

>> People seem to be forgetting that all I-D submissions used to
>> be processed an a person.

I am still remembering that time all too clearly. I suspect that anyone who 
worked for the secretariat as that person remembers it even more vividly :-)

On everything else, I want to echo Dave's "cool", and John's "thanks".

Spencer

>> The automated tool is very new.
>> When the I-D were processed by hand, the cut-off was necessary
>> for the Secretariat to handle the spike of submissions just
>> prior to the meeting.  Look at the statistics report by IETF
>> chair in their plenary presentations for the last few years --
>> the meetings cause a huge spike in I-D submissions.  Remember
>> back when the I-D submissions were handled by hand, it could
>> be days after the submission that the document actually
>> appeared in the repository.
>>
>> Now that we have the tool, it is a reasonable time to see if
>> we still need this cut-off rule.  I have put the topic on the
>> agenda for the IESG discussions in Dublin.
>
> Russ,
>
> Thanks.
>
> FWIW, it appears from various notes on this thread that we actually have 
> two separate cutoff rules, with one having effectively hidden the other. 
> One of those rules is the two and three week hard cutoff originally 
> imposed to protect the Secretariat, as you have described above.   That 
> rule came with a "AD exception" procedure, which seems to have gotten lost 
> over the years ("lost" == "current ADs didn't know about it"). Whether 
> that exception model was a good idea or not relative to other things ADs 
> could do with their time is a separate question -- it did exist and, for 
> better or worse, it was _very_ rarely used.
>
> The other rule is an RFC 2418 rule that says "should ... two weeks..." 
> (note lower-case "should").  It carries with it provision for exceptions 
> by WG chairs and some guidance as to whether those exceptions should be 
> granted.
>
> Many of the recent comments in this thread (including, I fear, mine) have 
> confused the two.   It appears to me that most of the suggestions could be 
> accommodated by looking at the first set of rules (the posting cutoffs) 
> only, either eliminating them entirely  or cutting them to the point 
> needed to assure a level playing field for those who are forced into 
> manual posting by deficiencies in the automatic posting tool.
>
>> I see this an opportunity for evolution and incremental
>> improvement.
>
> Indeed.  And a very welcome and much appreciated one.
>
>   john
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf