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
On 3/10/2013 8:27 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
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
On 10 Mar 2013, at 8:46, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 3/10/2013 8:27 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
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
On 10 Mar 2013, at 8:46, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 3/10/2013 8:27 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
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
On 03/10/13 09:12, Brian Trammell allegedly wrote:
Solve it with better management, not artificial barriers that are
imposed on everyone and that can be trivially routed around, albeit
without the benefits of using the I-D mechanism.
This seems like something that could be left to the
From: Eric Burger eburge...@standardstrack.com
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
On 10/03/2013 14:35, Scott Brim wrote:
On 03/10/13 09:12, Brian Trammell allegedly wrote:
Solve it with better management, not artificial barriers that are
imposed on everyone and that can be trivially routed around, albeit
without the benefits of using the I-D mechanism.
This seems like
On 03/10/13 11:15, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
Please don't. Currently we receive a flood of a few hundred drafts two
weeks before each meeting, which gives time for some triage. I do not
wish to receive a few hundred drafts on the first day of the meeting,
with no time for triage, but
On Mar 10, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 10/03/2013 14:35, Scott Brim wrote:
On 03/10/13 09:12, Brian Trammell allegedly wrote:
Solve it with better management, not artificial barriers that are
imposed on everyone and that can be trivially routed
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.)
This function is effectively suspended
Submission allowed; publication postponed?
/Elwyn
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 10:34 +0100, 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
submission allowed + publication posted but not fully considered in the WG
discussions?
On Mar 7, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Submission allowed; publication postponed?
/Elwyn
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 10:34 +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Oh, and one more data point:
The
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
There was a fire in the office, three desks away from mine last week during
the weekend. Sprinklers came on.
If my computer had either caught fire, or been exposed to too much water
(luckily neither happened) the draft would have been lost.
I still fail to see why the solution is to ban
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/4/13 2:53 PM, Roberto Peon wrote:
There was a fire in the office, three desks away from mine last
week during the weekend. Sprinklers came on. If my computer had
either caught fire, or been exposed to too much water (luckily
neither happened)
I think you mean backup solution, source control won't help on its own :)
-=R
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.imwrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/4/13 2:53 PM, Roberto Peon wrote:
There was a fire in the office, three desks away
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Roberto Peon wrote:
I think you mean backup solution, source control won't help on its own :)
Source control, assuming the traditional server implementation, is one
form of backup solution ... but I agree, the requirement is a backup
solution where the backup is protected
No disagreement. It is merely *a* way, and, popping back to the original
topic, it is better to allow the submission and deny the visibility than to
disallow the submission
-=R
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:22 PM, David Morris d...@xpasc.com wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Roberto Peon wrote:
I
On 27/02/2013 18:04, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Hi Melinda,
On 2013-02-26 23:31 Melinda Shore said:
On 2/26/13 1:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?
That one is weird, no doubt about it, but ultimately
it's 23:59 + 1 minute, which is clear. But I really
think
Ned,
On 27/02/2013 19:21, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
On 02/27/2013 01:49 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:18, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
routing around obstacles
It turns out for most people the easiest route around is submitting
in time.
That is
- Original Message -
From: Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.org
To: Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:49 PM
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com
wrote:
But more seriously: I agree with you both.
Hi Brian,
On 2013-02-28 09:05 Brian E Carpenter said:
On 27/02/2013 18:04, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Hi Melinda,
On 2013-02-26 23:31 Melinda Shore said:
On 2/26/13 1:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?
That one is weird, no doubt about it, but ultimately
it's
From: Stefan Winter stefan.win...@restena.lu
[...] ferkakte [...]
As a German, I'm now torn apart between being flattered that we've
successfully exported a German word to the U.S. and being speechlessly
shocked by the way spelling was b0rked in the process.
Given that the word is
Hi,
[...] ferkakte [...]
As a German, I'm now torn apart between being flattered that we've
successfully exported a German word to the U.S. and being speechlessly
shocked by the way spelling was b0rked in the process.
Stefan
--
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau
On 02/27/2013 03:46 PM, Stefan Winter wrote:
Hi,
[...] ferkakte [...]
As a German, I'm now torn apart between being flattered that we've
successfully exported a German word to the U.S. and being
speechlessly shocked by the way spelling was b0rked in the process.
I believe that it's
On Feb 27, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Glen Zorn glenz...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 02/27/2013 03:46 PM, Stefan Winter wrote:
Hi,
[...] ferkakte [...]
As a German, I'm now torn apart between being flattered that we've
successfully exported a German word to the U.S. and being
speechlessly shocked
Hi,
[...] ferkakte [...]
As a German, I'm now torn apart between being flattered that we've
successfully exported a German word to the U.S. and being
speechlessly shocked by the way spelling was b0rked in the process.
I believe that it's actually Yiddish.
yup:
Paul E. Jones pau...@packetizer.com wrote:
Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?
See http://dotat.at/tmp/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf section 4.2.3 midnight
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/
Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first.
Rough,
, February 27, 2013 1:19 PM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
Paul E. Jones pau...@packetizer.com wrote:
Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?
See http://dotat.at/tmp/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf section 4.2.3 midnight
Tony
(2013/02/27 21:19), Tony Finch wrote:
Paul E. Jones pau...@packetizer.com wrote:
Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?
See http://dotat.at/tmp/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf section 4.2.3 midnight
The IS should clarify that a day is [0:0, 24:0), not [0:0, 24:0]
and everything should be fine.
Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
(2013/02/27 21:19), Tony Finch wrote:
Paul E. Jones pau...@packetizer.com wrote:
Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?
See http://dotat.at/tmp/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf section 4.2.3 midnight
The IS should clarify that a day is [0:0, 24:0),
On 2/26/13 9:28 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting slots
in local time (local to the IETF Meeting), but does not give the
local time zone *anywhere*.
Except for the ICS files that
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Scott Kitterman
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:42 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
How does that relate to working groups that aren't meeting?
[WEG] Signal to noise
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Roberto Peon grm...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we
keep all of the versions anyway.
It certainly is annoying the way it is now and
You have two choices with the current model:
1) If the document is critical for WG progress, then talk to your WG
chairs and see if they are willing to contact the secretariat to let
the document through. You do need a very compelling reason to do
this, so it shouldn't be done as a rule.
2)
On 2/26/13 11:52 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
I believe that it's actually Yiddish.
It is. It may or may not be German, as well. Don't know.
Melinda
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 09:44:15 AM George, Wes wrote:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Scott Kitterman
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:42 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
How does
Hi Melinda,
On 2013-02-26 23:31 Melinda Shore said:
On 2/26/13 1:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?
That one is weird, no doubt about it, but ultimately
it's 23:59 + 1 minute, which is clear. But I really
think 24:00 is confusing. 0:00 is clearer. I'm
Tony Finch wrote:
The IS should clarify that a day is [0:0, 24:0), not [0:0, 24:0]
and everything should be fine.
Its definition of a calendar day is consistent with its definition of a
time interval. It doesn't make any distinction between including and
excluding the end instants. And I
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly.
+1
+1
The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of
those drafts (by hand) before the meeting. The notion of an
+1
In any case, the proposal as I understood it was that the deadline *would*
apply to drafts which the secretariat had to examine, just not the rest.
I certainly don't agree with giving an unsupportable load to our
secretariat before the meetings (and it isn't being proposed by me :) )
-=R
On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:18, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com 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
On 02/27/2013 01:49 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:18, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com 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
On 27 February 2013 08:46, Stefan Winter stefan.win...@restena.lu wrote:
Hi,
[...] ferkakte [...]
As a German, I'm now torn apart between being flattered that we've
successfully exported a German word to the U.S. and being speechlessly
shocked by the way spelling was b0rked in the process.
On 2/27/2013 10:18 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
All the more so since it just leads people to use informal distribution
methods. I don't recall a case where a chair forbid the discussion of a draft
distributed this way.
I recall hearing something once about routing around obstacles...
On 02/27/2013 01:49 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:18, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com 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
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
It used to be 5 PM Pacific, now it's 24:00 UTC.
It's always been 2400 UTC, but with all the daylight savings time
adjustments from country to country changing from year to year, I
have talked to the Secretariat before (and recently), and verified
this
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
It used to be 5 PM Pacific, now it's 24:00 UTC.
It's always been 2400 UTC, but with all the daylight savings time
adjustments from country to country changing from year to year, I
have talked to the
On 2/26/13 10:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
Requires a Unix like system...
I find these Linux-isms to be an abomination (remember when Unix
users used to know how to use Unix? Seems like ages and ages ago).
I use timeanddate.com quite a bit, myself. It's got some handy
calculators.
Melinda
On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
Personally, I'd trust date -u much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
$
On 2/26/2013 11:23 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
Personally, I'd trust date -u much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013
On Feb 26, 2013 2:24 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably be left as an exercise
for the reader...
Simple. Go to the UK, ensure it's winter, and ask a policeman.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/26/2013 11:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 2/26/2013 11:23 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
Personally, I'd trust date
On 2/26/2013 11:47 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/26/2013 11:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 2/26/2013 11:23 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James
joel jaeggli wrote:
Michael Tuexen wrote:
Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
Personally, I'd trust date -u much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
$
Requires a Unix
At 01:01 PM 2/26/2013, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
It used to be 5 PM Pacific, now it's 24:00 UTC.
It's always been 2400 UTC, but with all the daylight savings time
adjustments from country to country changing from year to year, I
have talked to the Secretariat
Hi Martin,
--On February 26, 2013 at 9:28:23 PM +0100 Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably be left as an exercise
for the reader...
I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG
Dale,
Personally, I'd trust date -u much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
$
Funny thing is when I try the date from the announcement:
All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by UTC
On 2/26/13 1:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?
That one is weird, no doubt about it, but ultimately
it's 23:59 + 1 minute, which is clear. But I really
think 24:00 is confusing. 0:00 is clearer. I'm
wondering if they're trying to work around some ferkakte
piece
On 2/26/13 2:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Dale,
Personally, I'd trust date -u much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
$
Funny thing is when I try the date from the announcement:
All Final Version
I think the problem is that if they said 0:00, it would be on Tuesday, February
26th, not Monday, February 25th, and people would submit a day late...
Margaret
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/26/13 1:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Seriously, what
On 2/26/13 1:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 2/26/2013 11:47 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
On 02/26/2013 11:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
Then again, having these deadlines at all is a bit silly.
It just forces authors to informally distribute updates directly
on the
list, and cuts off access to work
Joes,
Then again, having these deadlines at all is a bit silly.
It just forces authors to informally distribute updates directly on
the list, and cuts off access to work that doesn't need to happen in
sync with an IETF meeting.
I agree with your point to a large extent, but I'm sure there
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly.
+1
The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of
those drafts (by hand) before the meeting. The notion of an automated
On 2/26/13 1:45 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
On the one hand, having a cut-off time could help WG chairs make a decision
as to whether to entertain a discussion on a draft. On the other hand,
having no cut-off date might mean that drafts are submitted extremely late
and it makes it more
I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we
keep all of the versions anyway.
It certainly is annoying the way it is now and is disruptive to the
development process rather than helpful for it.
-=R
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Melinda Shore
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Roberto Peon grm...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we keep
all of the versions anyway.
It certainly is annoying the way it is now and is disruptive to the
development process rather than helpful for it.
For that to help, one must also assert that the people who would read the
changes two weeks before the meeting wouldn't read the changes the night
before the meeting, and that they'll remember whatever it is they need to
remember to be a useful active participant.
-=R
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at
On 26/02/2013 22:59, Warren Kumari wrote:
Another way to look at it is that a deadline, any deadline, helps stop folk
procrastinating and actually *submit*.
+1
lots of people - including me - are almost entirely event driven (no pun
intended).
Nick
From: m...@sap.com (Martin Rex)
I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting slots
in local time (local to the IETF Meeting), but does not give the
local time zone *anywhere*.
I would appreciate if the local
On 02/26/2013 02:49 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly.
+1
The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of
those drafts (by
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 07:35:35 PM Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/26/2013 02:49 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com
wrote:
But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly.
+1
The deadline originated
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:31:12PM -0900, Melinda Shore wrote:
it's 23:59 + 1 minute, which is clear. But I really
think 24:00 is confusing. 0:00 is clearer. I'm
wondering if they're trying to work around some ferkakte
piece of software.
I don't think so. ISO (ISO 8601) seems to think that
In message 20130227054857.gd7...@mx1.yitter.info, Andrew Sullivan writes:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:31:12PM -0900, Melinda Shore wrote:
it's 23:59 + 1 minute, which is clear. But I really
think 24:00 is confusing. 0:00 is clearer. I'm
wondering if they're trying to work around some
I'm doing a lot of work in regards to, creating working code, benchmarking,
testing, writing specs and prose, writing emails, wash, rinse, repeat, and
yes, the deadline is interfering with the publishing of the work-product of
all of that and likely the progress of the group.
... and what is the
The ID upload tool says the deadline has passed, yet a decade or more
the deadline has been 8pm ET/5pm PT. That's 15 minutes from now.
What gives?
James
At 11:05 AM 2/25/2013, IETF Secretariat wrote:
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Final Submission (version -01
and up) cut-off is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/25/13 5:47 PM, James Polk wrote:
The ID upload tool says the deadline has passed, yet a decade or
more the deadline has been 8pm ET/5pm PT. That's 15 minutes from
now.
I had the same problem last week for the -00 cutoff.
It used to be 5 PM
As has been true for a few years, the deadline is midnight UTC Monday
and not dependent on any particular United States time zone. The
Important Dates information and reminder messages all state this.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
At 06:50 PM 2/25/2013, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/25/13 5:47 PM, James Polk wrote:
The ID upload tool says the deadline has passed, yet a decade or
more the deadline has been 8pm ET/5pm PT. That's 15 minutes from
now.
I had the same problem
Don't think so:
mnot-mini:~ date -u
Tue 26 Feb 2013 01:01:29 UTC
On 26/02/2013, at 11:58 AM, James Polk jmp...@cisco.com wrote:
At 06:50 PM 2/25/2013, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/25/13 5:47 PM, James Polk wrote:
The ID upload tool says
On 2/25/13 5:02 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Don't think so:
mnot-mini:~ date -u
Tue 26 Feb 2013 01:01:29 UTC
On 26/02/2013, at 11:58 AM, James Polk jmp...@cisco.com wrote:
At 06:50 PM 2/25/2013, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/25/13 5:47 PM,
On 2011-07-11 16:50, Internet-Drafts Administrator wrote:
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Final Submission (version -01
and up) cut-off is today, July 11, 2011.
All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by 17:00 PT (00:00
UTC).
...
Out of curiosity - why do we still see
On Jul 15, 2011, at 10:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-07-11 16:50, Internet-Drafts Administrator wrote:
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Final Submission (version -01
and up) cut-off is today, July 11, 2011.
All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by 17:00 PT
Out of curiosity - why do we still see new drafts coming out, even -00 ones?
Some drafts don't get posted immediately
There also appears to be a bug, wherein the tool is not blocking late
submissions.
As we say, There are still a few bugs in the system.
Barry
On Jul 15, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Out of curiosity - why do we still see new drafts coming out, even -00 ones?
Some drafts don't get posted immediately
There also appears to be a bug, wherein the tool is not blocking late
submissions.
As we say, There are still a few
85 matches
Mail list logo
