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
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
-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
--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
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
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
--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
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
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
--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
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.
-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
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
--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
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
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
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
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
-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
-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
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]
--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
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
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
