I do but don't care. With my IETF hat on, the whole point of the cut-off is to enforce a physical barrier to ensure we do not ever hear, "I posted this draft yesterday, let's talk about it" in a work group. With my legal services hat on, with the US joining the rest of the world with first-to-file, those few weeks of publication could mean the difference between a free and open standard and a NPE swooping in and attempting to tax the industry.
On Mar 7, 2013, at 5:56 AM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 03/07/2013 09:34 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> Oh, and one more data point: >> >> The Internet-Draft archive also functions as a timestamped signed public >> archival record of our "inventions". >> (Which are often trivial, but triviality won't stop patenting of copycats, >> while a good priority more likely will.) > > FWIW, I think that's an incidental good side-effect but shouldn't > drive what we do here. > > My take is that I don't care about this, so long as drafts that > are discussed at meetings are posted early enough to allow folks > a chance to read them. The current rule achieves that well enough, > as could a less coarse-grained rule. I've not seen a worked out > proposal for such a less coarse-grained rule that achieves that > yet. > > S > >> This function is effectively suspended for six weeks a year. >> >> Grüße, Carsten >> >> PS.: (If that sounds like I'm contradicting myself that's only because we >> haven't found the right solution yet.) >> >> >> On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:49, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:18, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>> routing around obstacles >>> >>> It turns out for most people the easiest route around is submitting in time. >>> >>> That is actually what counts here: how does the rule influence the behavior >>> of people. >>> >>> Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.) >>> >>> Grüße, Carsten >> >>
