Subject: Re: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:31:01 -0500

I propose that we eliminate global cutoff dates and let each WG
establish any cutoff dates it needs for its own purposes.

In general we strive to have the principal forum for discussion be WG
mailing lists as opposed to the physical meetings themselves.  That
should be the default case.  Most WGs at least pretend to try to get
away from simple presentations.  IMHO the main purposes of the
physical meetings should be (1) within a WG to work out issues which
aren't making enough progress on the mailing lists; (2) cross-WG to
deal with issues which don't lend themselves to the mailing lists; and
(3) for IETF-wide discussion of IETF-wide issues.  

That means that the default case should be that any draft which has
not already been heavily discussed on the mailing list does not need
to be discussed at the physical meeting.

Of course there are a thousand exceptions to this.  For example, a WG
might be discussing things up to the last minute and then have someone
write up a draft as a snapshot of where they are.  Or someone has some
new work that impinges significantly on what is already being
discussed, so that it really should be discussed at the meeting even
though it was late.

What this boils down to is that in general, ongoing work shouldn't
have a submission deadline, and new work either doesn't need to be
discussed or, if it does, it shouldn't have a deadline either.

Because there are always exceptions, WGs should have the freedom to
create cutoff deadlines, but we don't need global ones.

The only people left who might need deadlines are the ADs, because
they have so much to cover.  First, if the default case is that
discussion first takes place on the mailing list, their situation is
less desperate.  Second, the ADs can have their own, IESG-specific
deadlines -- once again we don't need overgeneralized global ones.
It's important for the IETF to reduce global process constraints which
don't actually help the work get done.

See you ... Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:51:10 -0500

--On Friday, 01 February, 2008 15:31 -0500 Scott Brim
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> In general we strive to have the principal forum for
> discussion be WG mailing lists as opposed to the physical
> meetings themselves.  That should be the default case.  Most
> WGs at least pretend to try to get away from simple
>...

Scott,

Three observations...

(1) I think this implies that we wouldn't rely on tools to
enforce posting deadlines at all, but would just leave the
submission tools functioning year-round.  The posting deadlines
would then have to do with rules established by a WG as to what
they would consider.  I see two practical problems with that.
One is that we still have some I-Ds posted manually or, as with
WG -00 documents, still requiring manual intervention.  I
suspect it is not realistic to ask the Secretariat to keep that
process running at full efficiency right up to IETF, so we might
need a "no promises that this will get done if you submit it for
manual posting after..." sort of cutoff.   The other is that
multiple revisions of a document just before IETF could leave
people sitting in a meeting room looking at (or having read)
different versions of the same document.  That would be an
annoyance at best, but maybe worse.

(2) I think an early cutoff for individual documents that do not
directly relate to IETF WG or Standards-track work is useful
because it keeps the noise level down for all of us.    So a
WG-based cutoff might need to be accompanied by a tool-enforced
cutoff about most non-WG documents.

(3) Cullen's note emphasized the reading problems faced by ADs
who are trying to stay on top of all of the documents in their
areas.  I think we need to be very careful about that, balancing
permitting the ADs to function/manage effectively and
efficiently with efficient functioning of WGs.   Years ago, when
I was trying to do an AD job, I discovered that it was more
important to follow discussions than to read every revision of
every document, leaving it to the WGs and their leadership to be
sure that discussions were properly reflected in revisions and
to bring the issues to my attention when needed.   But Cullen
may well work differently than I did (and his results may be
better), so it is important to be sure that we don't upset his
balance and that of others working the way he works.

To repeat what I said in my first note, I hope we don't need to
redesign this on the list.  I was very pleased to see Cullen's
note and hope it is a sign that the IESG is beginning to discuss
the topic.   If they announce, after due consideration, a new
and better-balanced plan in Philadelphia, I expect to be happy
about it and consider it an improvement regardless of its
details.

   john

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:14:35 -0800

At Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:51:10 -0500,
> balance and that of others working the way he works.

FWIW, I'm not an AD but I, like Cullen, try to read every draft for
every WG I attend, so workload is a definite issue.

More important, though, is latency. The typical pattern is to have no
work done on the drafts in the 3 months after an IETF, then a whole
rush of work done in the next 2-3 weeks, and then all the drafts are
posted. The closer to the IETF the draft posting times get
the harder it is to have any kind of reasonable email discussion
of any draft...

-Ekr

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:38:12 -0800

> balance and that of others working the way he works.

Yep, it is clear to me that many ADs go about managing in different  
ways and that this diversity in this is a good thing - what works for  
one AD is not the best for others. Also, I agree we do need to  
optimize for the WGs getting the work done not optimize for an ADs  
ability to read it all. I was trying to make the argument that I  
suspect that some reasonable fraction of the key contributors in RAI  
are probably participating in  2/3 of the WGs that I am reading thus  
would have reading loads that were pretty heavy. I don't really know  
but I hope to ask some of them to keep track for this next meeting.

Cullen <with my individual contributor hat on>

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 22:44:40 +0100

> every WG I attend, so workload is a definite issue.

Exactly.

It's good to have a few weeks between the point where you need to have  
your own drafts done and the point where you need to have read other  
people's drafts.

The IRTF RRG wg produced a bunch of drafts (some long and complex and  
also new) shortly before the IETF meeting (where the RRG also met) and  
I found that highly problematic. In addition, there's only so many  
brain cells to go around, I would rather not use a larger proportion  
of them for remembering deadlines because the deadlines for different  
wgs are all different.

Any "fix" to the current system that makes it harder to have drafts  
read before the meeting is a bad idea.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf