Re: [Tools-discuss] I-D statistics

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 06:54 -0500 "Andrew G. Malis"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Nothing focuses attention like a deadline ....
> 
> As I recall, we used to have an earlier deadline for -00
> individual drafts. Perhaps it's time to go back to that.

> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 6:33 AM Martin Thomson
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024, at 18:06, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> > We now have 2183 active I-Ds.
>> > Of these, 511 (23.4 %) were submitted in ~ the last 5 days.
>> 
>> Two weeks is ample time to read those, right?

Borrowing from both of your comments, I wonder if supplementing
the parenthetical comment in the deadline description that reads:

	"(or all Internet-Drafts, including -00)"

which, IIR, was introduced when we dropped the earlier date for
-00, at least in part because it caused the other behavior that
Carsten mentioned, by introducing another date, about a month
out, reading something like:

	YYYY-MM-DD DayName  Internet-Drafts: Recommended final
	date for posting -00 drafts or other drafts containing
	significant new material.  Experience indicates that few
	drafts of that type posted closer to the meeting will be
	read by many IETF participants.

And then modifying the note on the actual deadline to

	"(or all Internet-Drafts, see YYYY-MM-DD for note on -00
	ones)"

Would have any useful effects? It could be combined with the
tutorial material on I-D that could say that posting new -00
I-Ds in less than a month before the meeting is a bad idea
because, unless they are the product of ongoing work in an
active WG, almost no one will read them.  I suppose we could
also require that WGs (including DISPATCH ones) get special
permission from the responsible AD to put a draft posted less
than a month in advance of a meeting on an agenda and, if so,
include that in the deadline note, replacing the "Experience..."
part suggested above with 

	"Drafts posted after this date will generally not be
	allowed on the agenda of the upcoming meeting."

I don't know if anyone who was inclined to post a new draft
within 24 hours of the actual deadline would pay attention, but,
since no specific tooling would be required other than an
adjustment to the "important dates" template, it would seem like
an inexpensive experiment if anyone thought it might help.

    john


>>