Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
Harald, I had not submitted a WG-named draft close to the deadline for some time, and obviously didn't notice earlier versions of the chair approval even a week further in advance announcement. I apologize for assuming it was a new problem and, hence, for assuming that it occurred after the discussions around July 14 had been concluded. At the same time, it appears to me that * The community was never asked to review or approve this change and that, had it been asked, alternative mechanisms (such as the WG Chair actually submits) might have been suggested that would have permitted shortening the schedule without placing additional burdens on the Secretariat. In that context, it would seem to me that a combined either the WG chair must approve several days in advance or must actually submit the document itself by the deadline rule might serve to balance the short time problem with the chairs sometimes travel one. * Similarly, the community has never been asked to review, or make suggestions about, the model/mechanism for WG Chair approval. While I don't think that is procedurally necessary, there are a lot of very smart people around the IETF, and a few of them aren't on the IESG or in the secretariat. It seems sensible to take advantage of that resource. It is interesting to me that at least two new suggestions have emerged in the circa 48 hours since I posted my rant: one to permit the WG Chairs to make the submission themselves, at least if it was clear that they were authorizing the document by doing so rather than approving it, and one (as I understand it) to actually create a placeholder document, rather than merely a note to the Secretariat. * even if only on an exception basis, the very short interval between IETF60 and IETF61 (three months --actually 13 weeks-- including a time when lengthy vacations are common in many parts of the world) probably should have resulted in a review and procedure as to whether the extra week was too intrusive in this case. I suspect it wasn't specifically on anyone's task list to notice, perform such a review, and ask the appropriate questions. Colin has raised several other issues that also, IMO, deserve careful consideration (which you have been giving them). So I think that, if nothing else, there are several lessons in this going forward. And, incidentally, some of those lessons may be about the Admin process and what expectations we should have of it. Noting the observation about task lists above, I'm not at all sure we should want to add careful and proactive tracking of this sort of thing to the IESG's workload, but it seems obvious (at least in retrospect) that it would be useful if it were done by someone. best, john --On Wednesday, 20 October, 2004 08:23 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, --On mandag, oktober 18, 2004 09:02:00 -0400 John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Over the last few IETF meetings, processing has become more automated, or the Secretariat has become more efficient in other ways. The typical time to get an I-D posted other than in the pre- and post-meeting rush has dropped to one working day and has sometimes even been less. And, during the rush, the queue has often cleared early enough that consideration of shortening the deadlines/ lead time would be in order. Instead, a new rule has apparently crept into the posting deadlines, with no community discussion or announcement other than in those deadline announcements. The rule, in this meeting's form, is that As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a filename beginning with draft-ietf must be approved by the appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or announced. WG Chair approval must be received by Monday, October 11 at 9:00 AM ET. as far as I can tell, this offset (different dates for -00 draft submission and WG chair approval) was first introduced into the I-D deadline announcement for the Vienna IETF meeting - summer 2003: NOTE: There are two (2) Internet-Draft Cutoff dates June 23rd: Cutoff for Initial Submissions (new documents) All initial submissions(-00) must be submitted by Monday, June 23rd, at 09:00 ET. Initial submissions received after this time will NOT be made available in the Internet-Drafts directory, and will have to be resubmitted. As before, all initial submissions (-00.txt) with a filename beginning with a draft-ietf MUST be approved by the appropriate WG Chair prior to processing and announcing. WG Chair approval must be received by Monday, June 16th. At the time of Salt Lake City (Nov 2001), which is the earliest announcement I have a
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
hi Harald, this sometimes doesnt work. for example, I submitted a 00 version working group draft on Oct 18 draft at 2 am (PST). I dont think the WG chair could have stayed up that late to send out the draft for me before the submissin deadline (6 am PST). :) I prefer just cc'ing the WG chairs when I submit the draft, and the WG chairs, as soon as possible, sending a mail confirming that the document should be processed as a working group document. can you ask the secretariat if they are okay with this? :) Vijay Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 18. oktober 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair submit the -00 document themselves, I've discussed this option with the secretariat, and they think this (having the WG chair submit or forward the document on behalf of the author was the thing suggested) is a very reasonable thing to do - for the spring IETF meeting. (didn't get it on the table long enough before this meeting to change). No opinion yet on the cutoff dates - still reading. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Vijay == Vijay Devarapalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Vijay this sometimes doesnt work. for example, I submitted a 00 Vijay version working group draft on Oct 18 draft at 2 am (PST). I Vijay dont think the WG chair could have stayed up that late to Vijay send out the draft for me before the submissin deadline (6 am Vijay PST). :) The idea is that the WG chair knows that the document is coming, and is permitting to send in a placeholder in advance of the deadline. Whether or not this causes a loophole in the -00 no placeholder rule, or whether or not we perhaps WANT this to be an official loophole, I don't know. - -- ] Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser - The Simpson | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson,Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy); [ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBQXXaJIqHRg3pndX9AQHfagP/TH8NdMRvA5KR2FOE/8VWRRLYGh0YGCzG igCIBZgHfAZqi9B6NNll7tdII4wlGPGmG7qmeCEWznqAQ9IVhMsFMFd6KGW/TTPk VAu0CF7CSiY7aJ3QcTw1Wuv6PSPj4jD+Hg3DvOTqV6vRpGdQ2wkmUDr06w9rttJW HxCQSMswhKo= =jqFL -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
--On tirsdag, oktober 19, 2004 18:39:49 -0700 Vijay Devarapalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi Harald, this sometimes doesnt work. for example, I submitted a 00 version working group draft on Oct 18 draft at 2 am (PST). I dont think the WG chair could have stayed up that late to send out the draft for me before the submissin deadline (6 am PST). :) I prefer just cc'ing the WG chairs when I submit the draft, and the WG chairs, as soon as possible, sending a mail confirming that the document should be processed as a working group document. can you ask the secretariat if they are okay with this? :) that was what the procedure used to be - and someone had to keep track of the pile of I-D submissions for which there was no response (yet) from the WG chair. That extra load is what the secretariat has been trying to avoid during the rush. Vijay Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 18. oktober 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair submit the -00 document themselves, I've discussed this option with the secretariat, and they think this (having the WG chair submit or forward the document on behalf of the author was the thing suggested) is a very reasonable thing to do - for the spring IETF meeting. (didn't get it on the table long enough before this meeting to change). No opinion yet on the cutoff dates - still reading. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
John, --On mandag, oktober 18, 2004 09:02:00 -0400 John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Over the last few IETF meetings, processing has become more automated, or the Secretariat has become more efficient in other ways. The typical time to get an I-D posted other than in the pre- and post-meeting rush has dropped to one working day and has sometimes even been less. And, during the rush, the queue has often cleared early enough that consideration of shortening the deadlines/ lead time would be in order. Instead, a new rule has apparently crept into the posting deadlines, with no community discussion or announcement other than in those deadline announcements. The rule, in this meeting's form, is that As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a filename beginning with draft-ietf must be approved by the appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or announced. WG Chair approval must be received by Monday, October 11 at 9:00 AM ET. as far as I can tell, this offset (different dates for -00 draft submission and WG chair approval) was first introduced into the I-D deadline announcement for the Vienna IETF meeting - summer 2003: NOTE: There are two (2) Internet-Draft Cutoff dates June 23rd: Cutoff for Initial Submissions (new documents) All initial submissions(-00) must be submitted by Monday, June 23rd, at 09:00 ET. Initial submissions received after this time will NOT be made available in the Internet-Drafts directory, and will have to be resubmitted. As before, all initial submissions (-00.txt) with a filename beginning with a draft-ietf MUST be approved by the appropriate WG Chair prior to processing and announcing. WG Chair approval must be received by Monday, June 16th. At the time of Salt Lake City (Nov 2001), which is the earliest announcement I have a copy of, the date for WG chair approval was 3 days after the deadline; when the deadline for submission was moved from Friday to Monday, the WG chair approval deadline did not move. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what discussion happened ahead of the 2003 change, and how the WG chairs were informed. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
On 20 Oct 2004, at 06:13, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On tirsdag, oktober 19, 2004 18:39:49 -0700 Vijay Devarapalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this sometimes doesnt work. for example, I submitted a 00 version working group draft on Oct 18 draft at 2 am (PST). I dont think the WG chair could have stayed up that late to send out the draft for me before the submissin deadline (6 am PST). :) I prefer just cc'ing the WG chairs when I submit the draft, and the WG chairs, as soon as possible, sending a mail confirming that the document should be processed as a working group document. can you ask the secretariat if they are okay with this? :) that was what the procedure used to be - and someone had to keep track of the pile of I-D submissions for which there was no response (yet) from the WG chair. That extra load is what the secretariat has been trying to avoid during the rush. Can't we just require the working group chairs to send approvals before the submission deadline? Much of the problem before was that there was no definite cut-off date for approvals. Colin ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
--On onsdag, oktober 20, 2004 09:31:06 +0100 Colin Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that was what the procedure used to be - and someone had to keep track of the pile of I-D submissions for which there was no response (yet) from the WG chair. That extra load is what the secretariat has been trying to avoid during the rush. Can't we just require the working group chairs to send approvals before the submission deadline? Much of the problem before was that there was no definite cut-off date for approvals. when was before? there's been definite cut-off dates for approvals for at least 3 years (see the deadline announcement messages). (I think the secretariat has accepted some late approvals, though...) ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
On 19 Oct 2004, at 06:13, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 18. oktober 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair submit the -00 document themselves, I've discussed this option with the secretariat, and they think this (having the WG chair submit or forward the document on behalf of the author was the thing suggested) is a very reasonable thing to do - for the spring IETF meeting. Provided the criteria the secretariat use to check drafts for acceptability are clearly published, so chairs can check that drafts meet those criteria before accepting them for submission (and by this I mean something explicit like run idnits v1.44 with no nits found and submit by date, and we'll guarantee to post the draft). As a chair, I don't want to be caught in the middle of an argument between an author and the secretariat about what constitutes correct boilerplate. Colin ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
On 20 Oct 2004, at 09:45, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On onsdag, oktober 20, 2004 09:31:06 +0100 Colin Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that was what the procedure used to be - and someone had to keep track of the pile of I-D submissions for which there was no response (yet) from the WG chair. That extra load is what the secretariat has been trying to avoid during the rush. Can't we just require the working group chairs to send approvals before the submission deadline? Much of the problem before was that there was no definite cut-off date for approvals. when was before? there's been definite cut-off dates for approvals for at least 3 years (see the deadline announcement messages). (I think the secretariat has accepted some late approvals, though...) Checking back, I see you're right about the approval deadlines, although if I remember correctly the deadlines were a lot less firm in the past. The main issue, though, is that having the approval deadline a week before the submission deadline causes problems, as John enumerated in his rant. In an ideal world, authors would know the drafts they were planning to submit in plenty of time, and they'd tell the working group chairs so approval can be given. In practice, and despite several reminders sent to the working group lists, I've seen several cases where the early approval deadline caused drafts to be rejected. That doesn't help the IETF process. Colin ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
--On 18. oktober 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair submit the -00 document themselves, I've discussed this option with the secretariat, and they think this (having the WG chair submit or forward the document on behalf of the author was the thing suggested) is a very reasonable thing to do - for the spring IETF meeting. (didn't get it on the table long enough before this meeting to change). No opinion yet on the cutoff dates - still reading. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
Hi. Summary: Four weeks? When we sometimes run only three months between meetings? Some years ago, the secretariat and IESG agreed on an I-D posting deadline about a week before IETF began, in the hope of getting all submitted drafts posted before WGs needed them for review and discussion. Prior to that rule, the last drafts to arrive either slipped through the cracks or were posted after we had started meeting, which did no one any good. As the load of incoming drafts increased, still with a completely manual process, the posting deadline was shifted back another week, to be two weeks before meetings began, and then a rule was imposed (for which I fear I'm at least partially responsible) requiring that initial-version drafts be posted yet a week earlier -- three weeks out. The theory behind the latter was the load continued to rise and that initial versions often took longer to process and confirm than second and subsequent versions, so it made sense to let the additional time burden fall on them. Such deadlines, considerably in advance of IETF meetings, are an impediment to objectives we claim for the standards process -- opportunities for people to get as much work as possible done outside the face to face meetings, and documents in hand that are timely enough that people who do not attend meetings in person can effectively express their comments. Over the last few IETF meetings, processing has become more automated, or the Secretariat has become more efficient in other ways. The typical time to get an I-D posted other than in the pre- and post-meeting rush has dropped to one working day and has sometimes even been less. And, during the rush, the queue has often cleared early enough that consideration of shortening the deadlines/ lead time would be in order. Instead, a new rule has apparently crept into the posting deadlines, with no community discussion or announcement other than in those deadline announcements. The rule, in this meeting's form, is that As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a filename beginning with draft-ietf must be approved by the appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or announced. WG Chair approval must be received by Monday, October 11 at 9:00 AM ET. First of all, this isn't as always. The rule requiring explicit WG Chair approval is fairly recent. But, more important, we now have a situation in which WG drafts -- presumably the most important documents for the face to face meetings-- now require formal naming, authorization, and approval a full four weeks before the first IETF meeting sessions. Remembering that we have sometimes had meetings as close as three months apart, but even with four months being the nominal separation, this is a _big_ chunk of time. On the three month schedule, and allowing a couple of weeks post-meetings for things to stabilize, people to get caught up, and new discussions to start, it could give a WG only six weeks to have a discussion that could generate a new document for discussion and agree on that document before cutoffs impose, at least, names that make those documents harder to find and track. As we continue to discuss problems and issues that get in the way of our getting effective work done, it seems to me that this is a new one that should be added to the list. Also, in the context of administrative reorganization, I would find it helpful, and others might too, to understand where this new requirement came from: (1) If from the Secretariat by unilateral action, it is perhaps a symptom of difficulties with the Secretariat that require some change in models. (2) If from the IESG, it perhaps should be examined as a procedural change made without an announcement to the community and opportunity for comment -- precisely the type of change that the July14 draft was intended to prevent in the future by providing a more efficient way to get such changes made _with_ community involvement and (at least default) authorization. Finally, if four weeks is really necessary, I suggest that we are in need of firm rules about minimum meeting spacing. john ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a John filename beginning with draft-ietf must be approved by the John appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or John announced. WG Chair approval must be received by Monday, John October 11 at 9:00 AM ET. John First of all, this isn't as always. The rule requiring John explicit WG Chair approval is fairly recent. But, more John important, we now have a situation in which WG drafts -- John presumably the most important documents for the face to face John meetings-- now require formal naming, authorization, and I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair submit the -00 document themselves, as a placeholder for the actual document. This can be done as soon as the WG believes that the should exist. That gets rid of the back-and-forth between chair, author and secretariat. John As we continue to discuss problems and issues that get in the John way of our getting effective work done, it seems to me that John this is a new one that should be added to the list. John Also, in the context of administrative reorganization, I would John find it helpful, and others might too, to understand where John this new requirement came from: I would like answers to the same question. I will say that having the rather early deadline means, as a submitter that I have to get my work done sooner, and this leaves *me* more time to read documents before the meeting. (ps: I'm taking the train from Toronto via NYC on Sunday, November 7th. I have a 20 minute allocation to change changes at Penn station, which I fear that Amtrak won't make. And I am trying to catch the last train that night to DC. I fear that I'll be sitting in Penn station all night reading drafts... Any locals got any advice?) - -- ] Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser - The Simpson | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson,Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy); [ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBQXPyv4qHRg3pndX9AQGlSQP+OEwka8uWs4TbZ83VgX4JsKr7buTmtmMZ qt9G32QLZU4gXsiwEfx1/l+5LhMUb5Fngzfv3AC5pCqgO+JeXXPKS+SxlNWeekAu gFU7mN0vrJu4oKMDP2+8ukGMy63teXH8JcLbkQgyLHasz5TbbJHkoDZ25AB4ZbAn UlE3XCDRhic= =k45B -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
John Good rant! I agree with each of your concerns, and ask too for discussion on what was brought up in your message. At 09:02 AM 10/18/2004 -0400, John C Klensin wrote: Hi. Summary: Four weeks? When we sometimes run only three months between meetings? Some years ago, the secretariat and IESG agreed on an I-D posting deadline about a week before IETF began, in the hope of getting all submitted drafts posted before WGs needed them for review and discussion. Prior to that rule, the last drafts to arrive either slipped through the cracks or were posted after we had started meeting, which did no one any good. As the load of incoming drafts increased, still with a completely manual process, the posting deadline was shifted back another week, to be two weeks before meetings began, and then a rule was imposed (for which I fear I'm at least partially responsible) requiring that initial-version drafts be posted yet a week earlier -- three weeks out. The theory behind the latter was the load continued to rise and that initial versions often took longer to process and confirm than second and subsequent versions, so it made sense to let the additional time burden fall on them. Such deadlines, considerably in advance of IETF meetings, are an impediment to objectives we claim for the standards process -- opportunities for people to get as much work as possible done outside the face to face meetings, and documents in hand that are timely enough that people who do not attend meetings in person can effectively express their comments. Over the last few IETF meetings, processing has become more automated, or the Secretariat has become more efficient in other ways. The typical time to get an I-D posted other than in the pre- and post-meeting rush has dropped to one working day and has sometimes even been less. And, during the rush, the queue has often cleared early enough that consideration of shortening the deadlines/ lead time would be in order. Instead, a new rule has apparently crept into the posting deadlines, with no community discussion or announcement other than in those deadline announcements. The rule, in this meeting's form, is that As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a filename beginning with draft-ietf must be approved by the appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or announced. WG Chair approval must be received by Monday, October 11 at 9:00 AM ET. First of all, this isn't as always. The rule requiring explicit WG Chair approval is fairly recent. But, more important, we now have a situation in which WG drafts -- presumably the most important documents for the face to face meetings-- now require formal naming, authorization, and approval a full four weeks before the first IETF meeting sessions. Remembering that we have sometimes had meetings as close as three months apart, but even with four months being the nominal separation, this is a _big_ chunk of time. On the three month schedule, and allowing a couple of weeks post-meetings for things to stabilize, people to get caught up, and new discussions to start, it could give a WG only six weeks to have a discussion that could generate a new document for discussion and agree on that document before cutoffs impose, at least, names that make those documents harder to find and track. As we continue to discuss problems and issues that get in the way of our getting effective work done, it seems to me that this is a new one that should be added to the list. Also, in the context of administrative reorganization, I would find it helpful, and others might too, to understand where this new requirement came from: (1) If from the Secretariat by unilateral action, it is perhaps a symptom of difficulties with the Secretariat that require some change in models. (2) If from the IESG, it perhaps should be examined as a procedural change made without an announcement to the community and opportunity for comment -- precisely the type of change that the July14 draft was intended to prevent in the future by providing a more efficient way to get such changes made _with_ community involvement and (at least default) authorization. Finally, if four weeks is really necessary, I suggest that we are in need of firm rules about minimum meeting spacing. john ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf cheers, James *** Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
--On Monday, 18 October, 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a John filename beginning with draft-ietf must be approved by the John appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or John announced. WG Chair approval must be received by Monday, John October 11 at 9:00 AM ET. John First of all, this isn't as always. The rule requiring John explicit WG Chair approval is fairly recent. But, more John important, we now have a situation in which WG drafts -- John presumably the most important documents for the face to face John meetings-- now require formal naming, authorization, and I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair submit the -00 document themselves, as a placeholder for the actual document. This can be done as soon as the WG believes that the should exist. That gets rid of the back-and-forth between chair, author and secretariat. It seems to me that this is one of the reasons why discussion of these proposals/plans with the community is important. It is not just a matter of approval of a new rule (although that is important), but the fact that the community can often come up with clever solutions that the Secretariat, or IESG, on their own, might not discover. I don't know if it would be worth the trouble, but either get WG chair pre-approval a week in advance _or_ the WG Chair must submit the document would seem to me to be a much more reasonable rule than the current one, which encourages individual-submission naming, followed by reissuing of an identical document under the WG name, which makes documents harder to track. John As we continue to discuss problems and issues that get in the John way of our getting effective work done, it seems to me that John this is a new one that should be added to the list. John Also, in the context of administrative reorganization, I would John find it helpful, and others might too, to understand where John this new requirement came from: I would like answers to the same question. I will say that having the rather early deadline means, as a submitter that I have to get my work done sooner, and this leaves *me* more time to read documents before the meeting. But this extra week won't, in practice. If it prevents posting the document with the draft-ietf-WGNAME form, it can still be posted as an individual submission. That just makes the documents harder to find and track. john ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
Dont have a lot to add to the already nicely articulated comments below from John. However, I would like to know why this IETF meeting in DC is scheduled so soon after the last one - barely 3 months from the last one. Added to this, the dead-lines for the drafts are more conservative, leaving very little time for the draft authors. Thanks. regards, suresh --- John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. Summary: Four weeks? When we sometimes run only three months between meetings? Some years ago, the secretariat and IESG agreed on an I-D posting deadline about a week before IETF began, in the hope of getting all submitted drafts posted before WGs needed them for review and discussion. Prior to that rule, the last drafts to arrive either slipped through the cracks or were posted after we had started meeting, which did no one any good. As the load of incoming drafts increased, still with a completely manual process, the posting deadline was shifted back another week, to be two weeks before meetings began, and then a rule was imposed (for which I fear I'm at least partially responsible) requiring that initial-version drafts be posted yet a week earlier -- three weeks out. The theory behind the latter was the load continued to rise and that initial versions often took longer to process and confirm than second and subsequent versions, so it made sense to let the additional time burden fall on them. Such deadlines, considerably in advance of IETF meetings, are an impediment to objectives we claim for the standards process -- opportunities for people to get as much work as possible done outside the face to face meetings, and documents in hand that are timely enough that people who do not attend meetings in person can effectively express their comments. Over the last few IETF meetings, processing has become more automated, or the Secretariat has become more efficient in other ways. The typical time to get an I-D posted other than in the pre- and post-meeting rush has dropped to one working day and has sometimes even been less. And, during the rush, the queue has often cleared early enough that consideration of shortening the deadlines/ lead time would be in order. Instead, a new rule has apparently crept into the posting deadlines, with no community discussion or announcement other than in those deadline announcements. The rule, in this meeting's form, is that As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a filename beginning with draft-ietf must be approved by the appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or announced. WG Chair approval must be received by Monday, October 11 at 9:00 AM ET. First of all, this isn't as always. The rule requiring explicit WG Chair approval is fairly recent. But, more important, we now have a situation in which WG drafts -- presumably the most important documents for the face to face meetings-- now require formal naming, authorization, and approval a full four weeks before the first IETF meeting sessions. Remembering that we have sometimes had meetings as close as three months apart, but even with four months being the nominal separation, this is a _big_ chunk of time. On the three month schedule, and allowing a couple of weeks post-meetings for things to stabilize, people to get caught up, and new discussions to start, it could give a WG only six weeks to have a discussion that could generate a new document for discussion and agree on that document before cutoffs impose, at least, names that make those documents harder to find and track. As we continue to discuss problems and issues that get in the way of our getting effective work done, it seems to me that this is a new one that should be added to the list. Also, in the context of administrative reorganization, I would find it helpful, and others might too, to understand where this new requirement came from: (1) If from the Secretariat by unilateral action, it is perhaps a symptom of difficulties with the Secretariat that require some change in models. (2) If from the IESG, it perhaps should be examined as a procedural change made without an announcement to the community and opportunity for comment -- precisely the type of change that the July14 draft was intended to prevent in the future by providing a more efficient way to get such changes made _with_ community involvement and (at least default) authorization. Finally, if four weeks is really necessary, I suggest that we are in need of firm rules about minimum meeting spacing. john ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf = ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
Hi John, John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, 18 October, 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snipped some text] I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair submit the -00 document themselves, as a placeholder for the actual document. This can be done as soon as the WG believes that the should exist. That gets rid of the back-and-forth between chair, author and secretariat. It seems to me that this is one of the reasons why discussion of these proposals/plans with the community is important. It is not just a matter of approval of a new rule (although that is important), but the fact that the community can often come up with clever solutions that the Secretariat, or IESG, on their own, might not discover. I don't know if it would be worth the trouble, but either get WG chair pre-approval a week in advance _or_ the WG Chair must submit the document would seem to me to be a much more reasonable rule than the current one, which encourages individual-submission naming, followed by reissuing of an identical document under the WG name, which makes documents harder to track. I don't have any input on exactly how, originated by whom, the current deadlines have come to be. However, if we're starting to discuss the mechanics of what might be done to move the deadlines closer to the meetings again, I'd like to point out that the ietf tools team, as it's first task, has been formulating requirements for a tool to automate draft submission, so that secretariat workload can be eliminated or severely reduced as a factor in draft posting deadlines (and WG chair approval deadlines). The requirements are documented in draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission, currently out in revision -04: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-04.txt We believe that the requirements are close to done, and hope that the tool can be produced and deployed fairly soon. This should make the draft posting deadlines a matter of deciding what is optimal for the community. The tool should make both posting and chair approval possible as close to the meeting dates as is found to be desirable. Regards, Henrik ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
Henrik, I'm aware of the tools team proposal. But I claim it illustrates the problem. See below. --On Tuesday, 19 October, 2004 01:03 +0200 Henrik Levkowetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... It seems to me that this is one of the reasons why discussion of these proposals/plans with the community is important. It is not just a matter of approval of a new rule (although that is important), but the fact that the community can often come up with clever solutions that the Secretariat, or IESG, on their own, might not discover. I don't know if it would be worth the trouble, but either get WG chair pre-approval a week in advance _or_ the WG Chair must submit the document would seem to me to be a much more reasonable rule than the current one, which encourages individual-submission naming, followed by reissuing of an identical document under the WG name, which makes documents harder to track. I don't have any input on exactly how, originated by whom, the current deadlines have come to be. However, if we're starting to discuss the mechanics of what might be done to move the deadlines closer to the meetings again, I'd like to point out that the ietf tools team, as it's first task, has been formulating requirements for a tool to automate draft submission, so that secretariat workload can be eliminated or severely reduced as a factor in draft posting deadlines (and WG chair approval deadlines). But you see, the secretariat workload has already, somehow, been reduced to the point that we are clearing the queue well in advance of the meetings, unlike a few years ago, when the deadlines were set and we routinely went right up against the meeting. If your reduce the load enough that things can be gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the meetings hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or the Secretariat and discussed with the community-- about how much closer the deadlines could be moved, followed by implementation. Instead, we have acquired a new rule that pushes the deadline even further out. I know that this is a little extreme, but, based on that experience, it is equally reasonable to assume that, if fewer cycles are required to process I-Ds before an IETF meeting, someone will wake up and, without consulting the community about priorities, decide it is useful to impose several _more_ process steps, since there would then be time for them within the current deadlines. We believe that the requirements are close to done, and hope that the tool can be produced and deployed fairly soon. This should make the draft posting deadlines a matter of deciding what is optimal for the community. The tool should make both posting and chair approval possible as close to the meeting dates as is found to be desirable. Sure. But assuming that either a careful review of what is desirable or any movement at all, will happen is, however rational, not supported by recent facts or experience. The creation of the tools is really independent from setting of the deadlines. regards, john ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
If your reduce the load enough that things can be gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the meetings hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or the Secretariat and discussed with the community-- about how much closer the deadlines could be moved, fwiw without changing the rules the closest we can get is two weeks see RFC 2418 section 7.1 All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before a session starts. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Pyda == Pyda Srisuresh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Pyda Dont have a lot to add to the already nicely articulated Pyda comments below from John. However, I would like to know why Pyda this IETF meeting in DC is scheduled so soon after the last Pyda one - barely 3 months from the last one. Added to this, the Pyda dead-lines for the drafts are more conservative, leaving very Pyda little time for the draft authors. Thanks. In general, we have to fit the meetings into a number of constraints. First, early-December to late-January is filled with all sorts of religious constraints: (Hannukah, Ramadan, Christmas, Solstice, Chinese new year, etc.). So, December is not an option. US-Thanksgiving basically writes up the last week of November and this year, the cross-over week. Second, we have to deal with not overlapping a number of other conferences/committees with either high overlaps in people, or in some cases, venues. The real question is, why was the last meeting scheduled so late. Why do we keep scheduling summer IETF on the first week of August. That's the only decent week of weather in most of Canada! mid-July is a much better time in my opinion. - -- ] Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser - The Simpson | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson,Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy); [ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBQXRemoqHRg3pndX9AQHNdwP9GrbNkkDjMRJtZ3Lfx9+TKky+naXXs368 ZoXLJ8EKr3M6NQVye3vPGQcqK9qthBxc8LyqBYJ80LZzIjiON0GG4W8hW1SRd1Fr DNUyRjvHSt0oxGb7cHCtR5pd0S4ZnwrxQryDgLW90uDWH7MmWs58jkwuSA2YeE5b XpOXc80vjHE= =eRol -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- scott == scott bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If your reduce the load enough that things can be gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the meetings hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or the Secretariat and discussed with the community-- about how much closer the deadlines could be moved, scott fwiw scott without changing the rules the closest we can get is two scott weeks Right, we want to have time to read the documents, and I think two weeks is fair. - -- ] Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser - The Simpson | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson,Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy); [ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBQXRf64qHRg3pndX9AQFcJwQAvddxRdFf6qSq+bYhlCB6tVw+f7BwDhaY JfSflzX71FV2tppxegL/SVeN9XAhMEVlSiwju/EbwxIUhk9UcYtDaLa16U0rQ17A gPfP7CQ6kFnh3bJ84bJN3TEhvcytcM9dgtzhGQab37bKF3stWIXMjtdiMUPVYmUM BiAT3PZT2og= =FxVC -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
without changing the rules the closest we can get is two weeks Personally I'd actually prefer 10 days, but two weeks is much better then 4 weeks and is a reduction of no-draft-can-be-published time from 30% to 15%. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
--On Monday, 18 October, 2004 20:20 -0400 scott bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If your reduce the load enough that things can be gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the meetings hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or the Secretariat and discussed with the community-- about how much closer the deadlines could be moved, fwiw without changing the rules the closest we can get is two weeks see RFC 2418 section 7.1 All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should bepublished and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks beforea session starts. But then it is violation of those rules to permit documents to be submitted at 9AM ET on the morning of 25 October that apply to a WG session starting at 9AM on 8 November, since they cannot possibly be published and available (which I would construe as including announced) that quickly. The latest posting deadline for revision docs has never been more than two weeks out, modulo time zone corrections. So this RFC 2418 rule has _always_ been ignored, and there has never (to my knowledge) been any attempt to notify or engage the community in approving the change. That probably makes it another IESG or Secretariat policy in violation of written procedures, although one could argue that the responsibility for enforcing that rule actually belongs to the WG Chair when someone attempts to reference the document. I would note, however, that agendas for sessions at IETF are rarely posted two weeks in advance. If one construed those as documents to be discussed, then we wouldn't even be able to meet :-( john ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, scott bradner wrote: If your reduce the load enough that things can be gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the meetings hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or the Secretariat and discussed with the community-- about how much closer the deadlines could be moved, fwiw without changing the rules the closest we can get is two weeks see RFC 2418 section 7.1 All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before a session starts. That is a *should* ... as written, not a MUST. Which with an automated tool would allow the WG chair to over-ride. Secondly, 'session' in my usage would be the WG session to discuss the draft. So for a Thursday WG session, the deadline would still be met, 1-1/2 weeks before the IETF meeting, not two weeks... Dave Morris ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
Hi John, John C Klensin wrote: Henrik, I'm aware of the tools team proposal. But I claim it illustrates the problem. See below. Yes, I thought you were - and I agree - continued below. --On Tuesday, 19 October, 2004 01:03 +0200 Henrik Levkowetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I don't have any input on exactly how, originated by whom, the current deadlines have come to be. However, if we're starting to discuss the mechanics of what might be done to move the deadlines closer to the meetings again, I'd like to point out that the ietf tools team, as it's first task, has been formulating requirements for a tool to automate draft submission, so that secretariat workload can be eliminated or severely reduced as a factor in draft posting deadlines (and WG chair approval deadlines). But you see, the secretariat workload has already, somehow, been reduced to the point that we are clearing the queue well in advance of the meetings, unlike a few years ago, when the deadlines were set and we routinely went right up against the meeting. If your reduce the load enough that things can be gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the meetings hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or the Secretariat and discussed with the community-- about how much closer the deadlines could be moved, followed by implementation. Instead, we have acquired a new rule that pushes the deadline even further out. Well, firstly, I don't have such a hypothesis :-) To me it's very clear that the I-D submission tool will provide the *option* to move the deadlines more freely, but to actually move them back is a completely separate step, governed by other mechanisms ,:-) I didn't know that the secretariat workload had been reduced, and that so is the case isn't necessarily a given conclusion from the data I have - the current state may also be the result of more secretariat manpower being brought to bear on the task now. But if it is indeed the case that secretariat workload has already been decreased I agree in your concern - it is not clear to me why it would be needed to push back the deadline even further, as has now been done. I know that this is a little extreme, but, based on that experience, it is equally reasonable to assume that, if fewer cycles are required to process I-Ds before an IETF meeting, someone will wake up and, without consulting the community about priorities, decide it is useful to impose several _more_ process steps, since there would then be time for them within the current deadlines. Don't know if it's *equally* reasonable ,:-) but it is worth being on guard against, at least. We believe that the requirements are close to done, and hope that the tool can be produced and deployed fairly soon. This should make the draft posting deadlines a matter of deciding what is optimal for the community. The tool should make both posting and chair approval possible as close to the meeting dates as is found to be desirable. Sure. But assuming that either a careful review of what is desirable or any movement at all, will happen is, however rational, not supported by recent facts or experience. The creation of the tools is really independent from setting of the deadlines. I agree. Which has been my viewpoint all along. I carefully did not say that having the tool will change the deadlines, I said it will make it possible to move the deadlines. Actually doing so is indeed an independent matter, worthy of attention. Henrik ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
