Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 20 July 2008 01:35 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7CBE3A69C5; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BDEF3A69AC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.191
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.408, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kxicyxGyLSsQ for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.174]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF5C3A68F8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so593917wfd.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ImqQ7AsSyx/OkpdA7v2++SnjovzOzRvrVGA34I2lTDw=; b=x7iqC6bUv5FOBWxLPTYGvSHX5jgAVP/dysQdzV1HCQt7vIgDETy3ammbTkbyJxYaBy gkUQJJ1lRBkjV+MvrAGfRnHeUuOK0nBEuO9oWJZYZsY8CsbGvrMgNTq0LCq7Ng3S5UzO ARK9/Foyk7kVj47raNROP2gz735zi0FcGiMwY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=lklePYcGOgjgwiyUMad0LjEQdUlCh/PQIcIxwkYdcNhcQ4anM+kBv1AQ/c5AdMLjV/ 6TF16s3pYq9gHtYd7UM1TqYJ5Q45yK7Q6IBgC1JUmQ739sDq++qOgst5ZZ3fHZyY5U0w QGLoU2Eg2Gict2YbeVxm3QG/V/QlKxQxwGPOo=
Received: by 10.142.229.5 with SMTP id b5mr689878wfh.310.1216517778825; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ( [118.93.54.65]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 24sm2343585wff.17.2008.07.19.18.36.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4882968C.5090800@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:36:12 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Subject: Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings
References: <043101c8e8ec$fa67c650$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <200807181819.m6IIJCIR025085@mta6.iomartmail.com> <048401c8e924$ab2ce600$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <XFE-SJC-211BBtNtxy0000033b7@xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com> <4881CFF5.3090008@piuha.net> <1EFD708A-8509-42A6-BBC9-824C27A7DCFA@multicasttech.com> <6BA8110C64663A4908066554@p3.JCK.COM> <48821469.4050907@employees.org> <20080719191556.567F03A6A32@core3.amsl.com> <48826DC0.8000307@dcrocker.net> <01MXCGZDHDXW000078@mauve.mrochek.com> <48828D3B.4050006@gmail.com> <01MXCL869C4K00007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01MXCL869C4K00007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
On 2008-07-20 13:01, Ned Freed wrote: >> Ned, > >> ... >>> Frankly, I think it is more about trusting groups to be able to manage >>> themselves than anything else. > >> I don't think that's quite fair. If you think about a participant >> who is tracking several WGs and/or topics that cut across many WGs, >> that person needs to be able to read everything relevant before > arriving. > > Really? The vast majority of document revisions I see don't make significant > changes, so even when I'm tracking a bunch of groups it is exceptionally rare > for me to have to read more than a few entirely new or substantially revised > documents. The rest I just check to see what's changed, which takes very little > time. (It also highlights another thing that's changed for us - the ready > availability of tools that compare document revisions.) > > Again, you appear to assume that all groups have similar document loads and > similar work patterns. This is simply not true. No, I' not assuming that. I'm talking (selfishly) about the inflow of drafts that one participant may need to read regardless of source, and I (selfishly) want that inflow to stop a couple of weeks in advance. > >> A cutoff about two weeks in advance does make that feasible. > > It does nothing of the sort. Again, it is pretty common for documents that miss > the deadline to be made available through other means. Yes, and it's also permissible and does happen for people in the WG session to object to drafts being discussed that have arrived too late to be read. > > Whether you want to admit it or not, the fact is that individuals see this rule > as damaging and are routing around it. True, but other individuals disagree. > >> (Let's see - I still have about 12 drafts to read - is that unusual >> with one week to go?) I would much rather have that situation, so >> that I can prioritize the drafts, than have them arriving until >> after I'm already in the air, which would be the inevitable result >> of relaxing the cutoff rules. > >> That said, exceptions should definitely be possible, and I would >> delegate that to WG Chair level. > > Well, that's a step forward, but instead of delgating an exception process > why not delegate the authority to decide on an appropriate draft handling > policy? Because I fear that the resulting temptation for each WG to consider only its own needs, plus the human tendency to work to deadlines, would result in ~300 drafts arriving on the Friday before the IETF starts. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Adrian Farrel
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Russ Housley
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Adrian Farrel
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings James M. Polk
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Jari Arkko
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Scott Brim
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John C Klensin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John C Klensin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Scott Brim
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John C Klensin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Russ Housley
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Jari Arkko
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Dave Crocker
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John C Klensin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John Leslie
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Dave Crocker
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Dave Crocker
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Pete Resnick
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Russ Housley
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Dave Crocker
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John C Klensin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Spencer Dawkins
- RE: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Eric Gray
- RE: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John C Klensin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Ned Freed
- RE: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Eric Gray
- RE: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf