Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

> On Jul 11, 2018, at 9:49 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 14:47 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> However, what I'm getting clearly from the last
>> 24 hours' email is that since we don't yet understand the
>> problem, it's way too soon to seriously design an
>> (experimental) solution.
> 
> Normally, I'd say that was true.
> 
> But the situation is not normal.  We are in a situation in which
> it seems clear that the thinking that went into
> draft-thomson-rfcplusplus-label-00 was key to the BOF proposal
> and that both it and the BOF proposal posit a very specific
> solution.  While I accept Martin's explanation and hence have no
> reason to believe the posting of that draft at the last minute
> was intended to disadvantage any other proposed solutions, it
> does have that effect, an effect that is aggravated by there
> still being no posted agenda for a BOF that occurs on the first
> day of the meeting.  That leaves us without knowing whether the
> intention is to discuss the problem or to assume, as the BOF
> proposal does, that there is a problem that is in need of
> solutions and that we are discussing solutions (or one specific
> solution).  Perhaps the plan is "both", but, especially with
> only one possible solution available in I-D form before Monday
> morning and the amount of discussion about a variety of topics
> on the list, 90 minutes seems very compressed.
> 
> Alissa, given that state of affairs and assuming that possible
> solutions are not going to be ruled out of order in Monday's
> discussion, can we get blanket permission for late-posting
> (before Monday) of any draft related to this BOF?  

As has been my practice pretty much since I joined the IESG, I’m fine with doing manual postings of late-arriving drafts between now and when the submissions window opens, if people send them to me. And of course there is nothing stopping people from sending pointers to documents they’ve written that haven’t yet been posted to the I-D repo, as has become more common in some WGs lately.

Alissa

> I think it is
> generally accepted that discussing I-Ds, even hastily prepared
> ones, is usually more productive than discussing partial
> proposals that go by on mailing lists.   And, while the posting
> cutoff was intended, in part, to allow people adequate time to
> read and study documents before IETF begins, it seems to me that
> giving people the weekend (and possibly even part of tomorrow
> and Friday) is preferable to either giving them zero time
> (solutions introduced at the BOF itself) or well under 24 hours
> between whenever I-D postings are allowed again on Monday (the
> "important dates" page appears to no longer show whether that
> is, e.g., 00:01 UTC or the starting time of the meeting).
> 
> best,
>   john
> 
> 
> 
> 
>