> Dave,
> > It is pretty much never a good idea to have the mechanics of a process
> > contain artificial constraints, as a means of implementing higher-level
> > policies.
> >
> > If a working group is worried about documents getting read, they will
> > impose their own deadlines or they will constrain their agenda. Having
> > the Secretariat use an IETF-wide deadline for this purpose is
> > Procrustean, to say the least.
> This sort of constraint is a safe guard against run away working group
> chairs attempting to ram through changes by silencing people who have
> not read the latest draft that came out while people were traveling to
> the event.
In practive all this does is force groups to distribute drafts via other means.
I've seen plenty of cases where the version of a draft discussed at a meeting
isn't available as an I-D yet.
In other words, the constraint doesn't appear to be an effective safeguard
in practice. Dave has it right: This is simply a Procrustian annoyance.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
