RE: Adequate time to review all WG documents

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dale,
At 07:20 08-11-2011, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
>Well, all of the *drafts* for these WGs have to be published by now,
>as I-D submission has been cut off.  So you can review them.

I predict that there will be a flood of I-Ds on Monday.  The 
availability of I-D issue is not specific to the WGs mentioned in my 
previous message.

>I think you are concerned that there is no public notice of *which*
>documents *need to be reviewed* for the session, so it is no help to
>know that the document is available to read if you knew that you
>needed to read it.

I would not rate it as a concern as that's too strong.  I'll attempt 
to provide a different perspective.  Let's assume that I will be 
following the forthcoming meeting.  As I am new to the IETF, I'll go 
to www.ietf.org to find the agenda ( 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/82/agenda.html ).  After going 
through the agenda for the WGs I follow, I see that I have some spare 
time which I could put to use by identifying interesting work being 
done in other WGs or areas.  As Websex sounds interesting, I read the 
agenda to check out the drafts as the WG Chairs will likely ask "who 
has read this draft".  There are three drafts [1]:

  (i)   draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-01
  (ii)  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-evans-palmer-hsts-pinning/
  (iii) draft-hodges-websec-framework-reqs-00

During the WG session, I find out that I read an old version of the I-Ds.

I could pick other examples.  Note that publishing an agenda or 
submitting an I-D before the submission cut-off does not mean that 
people will read all that.  The point is to give  people adequate 
time to identify and review what will be discussed.

Regards,
-sm

1. Two of these I-Ds have already been revised and the reference for 
one of them is not stable.