Re: IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )
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 stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie 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 c...@tzi.org 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 people. Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.) Grüße, Carsten
Re: IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )
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 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. If that were a problem for all working groups, all the time, it might make at least some sense. But it isn't, so it doesn't. It also entirely underestimates the ability of participants to generate new, unreasonable demands... Ultimately the problem you are using for justification is a matter of good working group management. 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. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )
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 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. If that were a problem for all working groups, all the time, it might make at least some sense. But it isn't, so it doesn't. It also entirely underestimates the ability of participants to generate new, unreasonable demands... Ultimately the problem you are using for justification is a matter of good working group management. 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. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )
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 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. If that were a problem for all working groups, all the time, it might make at least some sense. But it isn't, so it doesn't. It also entirely underestimates the ability of participants to generate new, unreasonable demands... Ultimately the problem you are using for justification is a matter of good working group management. 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. +1 (and apologies for the jet-lag-induced empty post)... There's a big difference between a -01 revision of an individual draft which substantially replaces the content of its -00, and a last-minute revision -22 of a long-standing working group draft that fixes a minor point that's been well-discussed on the list with clear consensus for the change. A week before a WG meeting, it's just as unrealistic to expect people to be able to discuss the former if it's posted as it is to expect them _not_ to post the latter on a private server somewhere and point to that in the discussion. This seems like something that could be left to the discretion of the chairs on setting the agenda for each WG meeting, as long as there's transparency in the criteria that will be used to decide whether a recently-submitted draft can be discussed on the agenda. An announcement from the chairs here would suffice, from something simple like The traditional two-week period applies: drafts to be discussed in Berlin must be submitted before Monday July 15, or a slightly fuzzier: Priority in the working group agenda will be given to working group drafts before individual drafts, then to draft revisions submitted earlier than later, as we believe we can have a more productive discussion on work that more people have had a chance to read. Different WGs have different workflows, though, so allowing the chairs to do this on a per-WG basis seems reasonable. Cheers, Brian
Re: IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )
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 discretion of the chairs on setting the agenda for each WG meeting, as long as there's transparency in the criteria that will be used to decide whether a recently-submitted draft can be discussed on the agenda. Yes, place the decision in the WGs. Once upon a time in a WG far away we did say You can submit drafts and discuss them on the mailing list any time you want, but the agenda for the meeting will be set two weeks in advance.
Re: IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )
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 tax the industry. If that's the concern, there's an easy fix for that one: upload the document to one of those open file-sharing sites (Scribd, DropBox) and send a pointer URL to the WG mailing list. That out to count as 'open publication' for legal purposes. Noel
Re: IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )
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 something that could be left to the discretion of the chairs on setting the agenda for each WG meeting, as long as there's transparency in the criteria that will be used to decide whether a recently-submitted draft can be discussed on the agenda. Yes, place the decision in the WGs. Once upon a time in a WG far away we did say You can submit drafts and discuss them on the mailing list any time you want, but the agenda for the meeting will be set two weeks in advance. 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 that would be the inevitable end-point if the deadline was abolished. (Unless there has been an unannounced change in human nature, of course.) Brian
Re: IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )
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 that would be the inevitable end-point if the deadline was abolished. (Unless there has been an unannounced change in human nature, of course.) but you can disallow them yourself.
Re: IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )
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 around, albeit without the benefits of using the I-D mechanism. This seems like something that could be left to the discretion of the chairs on setting the agenda for each WG meeting, as long as there's transparency in the criteria that will be used to decide whether a recently-submitted draft can be discussed on the agenda. Yes, place the decision in the WGs. Once upon a time in a WG far away we did say You can submit drafts and discuss them on the mailing list any time you want, but the agenda for the meeting will be set two weeks in advance. 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 that would be the inevitable end-point if the deadline was abolished. (Unless there has been an unannounced change in human nature, of course.) Brian +1
IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )
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 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 c...@tzi.org 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 people. Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.) Grüße, Carsten
Re: IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )
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 won't stop patenting of copycats, while a good priority more likely will.) 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 c...@tzi.org 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 people. Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.) Grüße, Carsten
Re: IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )
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 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 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 c...@tzi.org 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 people. Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.) Grüße, Carsten
Re: IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )
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 c...@tzi.org 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 people. Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.) Grüße, Carsten
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 *submissions*. It seems like a better solution is one of visibility for those who need to triage. -=R On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: 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 actually what counts here: how does the rule influence the behavior of people. Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.) +1. As far as I can tell, the deadline actually serves the purpose of getting people to focus on IETF and update their documents sufficiently prior to the meeting, that it's reasonable to expect meeting participants to read the drafts that they intend to discuss. And I say this as someone who, as an author, has often found the deadline to be very inconvenient. And your evidence for this is .. what exactly? Yes, the deadline makes the drafts show up a bit sooner, but I rather suspect that the overwhelming majority of people don't bother to do much reading in the inverval. I certainly don't. Just to present another view, I certainly do. I agree that this is more important for -00 drafts, and that looking at the diffs *may* be sufficient for updated drafts. However, with hundreds of documents coming down the pipe shortly before the meeting, I firmly believe that the two deadlines are essential in order to achieve any kind of systematic triage and decide what needs careful reading. I think many of us have a wide range of interests that make this triage important. Brian
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
-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) the draft would have been lost. Nothing is stopping you from using source control. :-) Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRNUTaAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pOFUP+wVEi8afThphqWQbv1yU6hcf W+ZcBao62aUue+Kek86kbfGaEaxmwLqwltJPReJQb8lTUIYcNPu0Fu1eZ9zEcbsX 6Zq1TEyPxCc+9BjytU2c5ZOOaA6jdGDDK57/rY8Rnx92w7W4ads2dY9wgDXSwiUt sXL6WpIhRDD2MDWVzmu7dDP5FzrlzQtk4xdZo4vJRk5LXVpVVCUKerHYXquuCdj/ 1xWMHXNGfVP2rCymfgcSiwOGjOBKzzfyQ5j2YXK/Fj9uEFjIkIaECYPFEeRH64qJ i1wbPqbMpJeoMzE82me0Ba1lDwiH93W4eUXUqBEIGsZ0WgoaNhYs/PqMikMGVk77 aZ2fKwCNNt0GmjmKf3MaRCwSAoaIfHqjFkxEhasOIz4u4kB2Gdq0JVjRSVH/sX09 CXrFt9as1z7NxF7nvQkTK1pFDxOZiKcDkNUfiOX47C372QjXITfyqA5Tcy0AR8ZM 7TRcf0lKBnl84XHEAXDeFfv9mFC8W2ozM3OtJVTBsM1rXVLsPs7hei1HHspytRUB WmrDI3C49OIOT4xSMG12rQ1G66WC0KPckzLmxsJbEwryW6gx1hQMz0reeRDticID LAdNHAn4CJv3+fEQcAqpk8EI204vdhXLaKIgsZk+XiB+ktK9TYmapC2LUzJmDSYq xT1G6WR9Mynm3TixX0nS =1HLF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 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. Nothing is stopping you from using source control. :-) Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRNUTaAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pOFUP+wVEi8afThphqWQbv1yU6hcf W+ZcBao62aUue+Kek86kbfGaEaxmwLqwltJPReJQb8lTUIYcNPu0Fu1eZ9zEcbsX 6Zq1TEyPxCc+9BjytU2c5ZOOaA6jdGDDK57/rY8Rnx92w7W4ads2dY9wgDXSwiUt sXL6WpIhRDD2MDWVzmu7dDP5FzrlzQtk4xdZo4vJRk5LXVpVVCUKerHYXquuCdj/ 1xWMHXNGfVP2rCymfgcSiwOGjOBKzzfyQ5j2YXK/Fj9uEFjIkIaECYPFEeRH64qJ i1wbPqbMpJeoMzE82me0Ba1lDwiH93W4eUXUqBEIGsZ0WgoaNhYs/PqMikMGVk77 aZ2fKwCNNt0GmjmKf3MaRCwSAoaIfHqjFkxEhasOIz4u4kB2Gdq0JVjRSVH/sX09 CXrFt9as1z7NxF7nvQkTK1pFDxOZiKcDkNUfiOX47C372QjXITfyqA5Tcy0AR8ZM 7TRcf0lKBnl84XHEAXDeFfv9mFC8W2ozM3OtJVTBsM1rXVLsPs7hei1HHspytRUB WmrDI3C49OIOT4xSMG12rQ1G66WC0KPckzLmxsJbEwryW6gx1hQMz0reeRDticID LAdNHAn4CJv3+fEQcAqpk8EI204vdhXLaKIgsZk+XiB+ktK9TYmapC2LUzJmDSYq xT1G6WR9Mynm3TixX0nS =1HLF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 from the hazards the individual computer would be subjected to. Draft submission is hardly the best way to protect work. 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 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. Nothing is stopping you from using source control. :-)
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 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 from the hazards the individual computer would be subjected to. Draft submission is hardly the best way to protect work. On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: -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) the draft would have been lost. Nothing is stopping you from using source control. :-)
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 24:00 is confusing. 0:00 is clearer. I'm wondering if they're trying to work around some ferkakte piece of software. No, it's just trying to provide a time indication that people will easily interpret correctly. Trying out the correct notation (using 00:00 and the following date) on people during informal testing, I found that people were much more prone to interpret that as the deadline being 24 hours later than was intended. Strange. Do they think that a train that departs at 00:01 is 23 hours and 59 minutes earlier than one that departs at 00:00? However, the phrase midnight on Monday is certainly unclear. I suppose it means 00:00 on Tuesday, but maybe not. But in any case, while teaching, I chose to set assignment deadlines at 23:59 for exactly this reason - nothing is completely idiot proof, but this seems to work out OK. Brian
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 actually what counts here: how does the rule influence the behavior of people. Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.) +1. As far as I can tell, the deadline actually serves the purpose of getting people to focus on IETF and update their documents sufficiently prior to the meeting, that it's reasonable to expect meeting participants to read the drafts that they intend to discuss. And I say this as someone who, as an author, has often found the deadline to be very inconvenient. And your evidence for this is .. what exactly? Yes, the deadline makes the drafts show up a bit sooner, but I rather suspect that the overwhelming majority of people don't bother to do much reading in the inverval. I certainly don't. Just to present another view, I certainly do. I agree that this is more important for -00 drafts, and that looking at the diffs *may* be sufficient for updated drafts. However, with hundreds of documents coming down the pipe shortly before the meeting, I firmly believe that the two deadlines are essential in order to achieve any kind of systematic triage and decide what needs careful reading. I think many of us have a wide range of interests that make this triage important. Brian
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
- 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. 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 tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting is just silly. tp Sometimes, history is bunk:-) Whatever reason is buried in the mists of time, the sheer volume of I-Ds that flood the IETF each and every day requires a pause in the process for someone who wishes to make an informed contribution to an IETF meeting to step back and consider what preparation they need to do before attending. The publication deadline provides that, especially against the authors who want to do everything at or after the last minute, regardless of the cost to those who want to use their time more productively by planning ahead. Of course, if your only interest is in your own I-D, or that of your fellow-workers, then you may not grasp the importance of this issue in the work of the IETF at large:-( Tom Petch Margaret
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 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. No, it's just trying to provide a time indication that people will easily interpret correctly. Trying out the correct notation (using 00:00 and the following date) on people during informal testing, I found that people were much more prone to interpret that as the deadline being 24 hours later than was intended. Strange. Do they think that a train that departs at 00:01 is 23 hours and 59 minutes earlier than one that departs at 00:00? Probably not: I think it's the 00:00 which some people tend to (unconsciously) translate to 'Midnight', and midnight at a certain date is, exactly as you point out below, somewhat less clear. However, the phrase midnight on Monday is certainly unclear. I suppose it means 00:00 on Tuesday, but maybe not. But in any case, while teaching, I chose to set assignment deadlines at 23:59 for exactly this reason - nothing is completely idiot proof, but this seems to work out OK. Ack. I'll try to get acceptance for that. Best regards, Henrik
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 Yiddish, and therefore has been transliterated from the Hebrew alphabet (in which Yiddish is written) into the Latin alphabet, you can blame the problem on incorrect internationalization... Dale
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg Tel: +352 424409 1 Fax: +352 422473 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 actually Yiddish. Stefan
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 by the way spelling was b0rked in the process. I believe that it's actually Yiddish. yup: http://www.yiddishdictionaryonline.com/dictionary/display.php?action=searchtype=romword=farkakt still my bet would be that this Yiddish word has Germanic origins…. Klaas
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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: http://www.yiddishdictionaryonline.com/dictionary/display.php?action=searchtype=romword=farkakt still my bet would be that this Yiddish word has Germanic origins…. Here we see one of the *good* things about having an I-D cutoff deadline. One finally finds time to do /other/ things ;-) Stefan -- Stefan WINTER Ingenieur de Recherche Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg Tel: +352 424409 1 Fax: +352 422473 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good, occasionally poor at first.
RE: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
Do not worry that much and use: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?month=3day=11year=2013p1=224p2=64p3=43p4=37p5=33iv=0 Cheers, Mehmet -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Tony Finch Sent: Wednesday, 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. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good, occasionally poor at first.
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
(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
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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), 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 don't think it would be sensible to do so: it would clutter the time interval notation with no clear benefit. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good, occasionally poor at first.
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 are generated by the agenda tool (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/86/agenda.html). If you take the URL that is generated after you select the sessions you are interested in, you can import a series of EVENTs complete with VTIMEZONEs into any modern calendar program (e.g., Outlook, iCalendar) and the Right Thing® will happen. Eliot
RE: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 ratio. I (and I assume others) use the IETF's RSS feed to see all new drafts when they are posted. This is in order to have a fighting chance to see drafts I might care about that happen in WGs that I am not an active participant in, both to help me see if there are other WG lists I need to subscribe to or if there are meetings I should attend as a tourist, or direct feedback to the authors prior to IETF LC. New drafts posted for WGs that aren't meeting (and while I'm at it, throwaway placeholder -00 drafts with no content) help contribute to the crush of drafts to sift through, because it's not readily apparent based on the RSS summary or the draft itself whether the WG is meeting. Add me as one more +1 in support of a quiet period to give me a chance to catch up on draft review before the meeting. It was silly I had to rush to post a draft on Monday for a WG that's not meeting. [WEG] Yes it was silly you had to rush, because if the WG isn't meeting, there's no reason why you couldn't have simply waited until after the moratorium elapsed, or posted it well prior to the inevitable rush of work that precedes every meeting. Though alternatively it should be possible to have the system continue accepting submissions and only make them public at the expiration of the posting moratorium. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: [IETF] Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 is disruptive to the development process rather than helpful for it. Um, maybe. Another way to look at it is that a deadline, any deadline, helps stop folk procrastinating and actually *submit*. Have a look at the number of submissions just before the cutoffs… [MB] I agree. The deadline is what pushes the vast majority to get work done. WG chairs to have discretion and they can ask the secretariat to post something after the deadline. I believe that's more than sufficient. As Melinda noted in another email work should happen on the mailing list. If the documents aren't out earlier, then there is no time to discuss on the mailing list. Without mailing list discussion or folks even having read drafts, the WG time is not nearly as effective in my experience and I honestly think that's one reason it takes IETF so *many* cycles to get work done. In the RAI area, we've had a process in place that has earlier deadlines that REQUIRE wg discussion or the documents do NOT get agenda time. That has proven fairly effective We have made the deadlines less restrictive over the past year and we seem to have reached a good steady state in the process. If anyone wants to debate the merits of that process, please do so on the RAI area list as we are always looking to improve. The nature of this WG is different, of course. For the other WG I chair, the group has been pretty good about getting documents updated outside the deadlines. But, that's because we have regularly design team meetings that introduce deadlines for work to get out for mailing list discussion, which gets back to the basic fact that many procrastinate or get distracted with other things and unless there's a deadline, the work will not get done in a timely manner. [/MB] W -=R On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote: 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 challenging or impossible to prepare an agenda. Well, for one thing the IETF does its work on mailing lists, and meetings support that rather than the other way 'round. For another, I'm not sure this deadline makes any difference in practice (other than introducing an inconvenience). We're going to be giving meeting time to a draft for which there's no revision, because it needs meeting time. It's on the agenda whether there's a revision or not. I understand the deadline was introduced to provide incentives for people to get their stuff in in advance of a meeting. But. Melinda -- I had no shoes and wept. Then I met a man who had no feet. So I said, Hey man, got any shoes you're not using?
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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) Submit the document the Monday of the meeting week when the submission process is re-opened. If one looks at the volume of documents that many need to read before meetings, if everyone waited until the few days before the meetings to submit, then our meetings would be even less effective. How many could read all the pages of the WG documents that they are interested in a few days? I don't recall the number right off, but in the past someone created a file with all the RAI area drafts - it was a crazy number and even for a two week period, it was humanly impossible to read all the drafts unless you speed read (and miss information) and are reading 24 hrs/day. Regards, Mary. On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com wrote: 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 because the secretariat needed time to post all of those drafts (by hand) before the meeting. The notion of an automated tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting is just silly. -1 There are a non-trivial number of people who are intensely busy in the weeks leading up to a meeting, with a high degree of overlap with the set of people we want to be able to actually read the drafts prior to the face to face meeting of the WG. The same argument applies, although to a somewhat lesser extent, to being able to post for groups that are not meeting. Is a few weeks where people cannot post what they want, when they want to; in order for the larger populace of the IETF to be able to focus on the activity in and around the meeting REALLY that much of a burden? How does that relate to working groups that aren't meeting? It was silly I had to rush to post a draft on Monday for a WG that's not meeting. Scott K
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 that relate to working groups that aren't meeting? [WEG] Signal to noise ratio. I (and I assume others) use the IETF's RSS feed to see all new drafts when they are posted. This is in order to have a fighting chance to see drafts I might care about that happen in WGs that I am not an active participant in, both to help me see if there are other WG lists I need to subscribe to or if there are meetings I should attend as a tourist, or direct feedback to the authors prior to IETF LC. New drafts posted for WGs that aren't meeting (and while I'm at it, throwaway placeholder -00 drafts with no content) help contribute to the crush of drafts to sift through, because it's not readily apparent based on the RSS summary or the draft itself whether the WG is meeting. Add me as one more +1 in support of a quiet period to give me a chance to catch up on draft review before the meeting. If you want a quiet period, stop looking at the feed. If, as I' and others have suggested, submissions are still blocked for WG that are meeting, then anything in the feed after the cutoff is unrelated to your meeting preparations. It was silly I had to rush to post a draft on Monday for a WG that's not meeting. [WEG] Yes it was silly you had to rush, because if the WG isn't meeting, there's no reason why you couldn't have simply waited until after the moratorium elapsed, or posted it well prior to the inevitable rush of work that precedes every meeting. Though alternatively it should be possible to have the system continue accepting submissions and only make them public at the expiration of the posting moratorium. It was rush in the sense that I'd have preferred to wait another day or two for feedback on a few points. It wasn't a rush job in the sense of rushing to prepare a draft. As it is, we have a good (IME anyway) draft that resolves a number of issues and is a solid foundation for moving on to address our remaining issues. Waiting to post it would have only slowed the progress of the WG. There are natural places in the work of a WG to post an updated draft. For WG that aren't meeting, IETF meeting draft cut offs should not affect that. It's not like the list of WG that are meeting aren't known well in advance of the cut off. Scott K
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 wondering if they're trying to work around some ferkakte piece of software. No, it's just trying to provide a time indication that people will easily interpret correctly. Trying out the correct notation (using 00:00 and the following date) on people during informal testing, I found that people were much more prone to interpret that as the deadline being 24 hours later than was intended. I can of course make it 23:59 to be both correct and easily read, if the powers-that-be will permit a one-second shift in actual deadline time. Best regards, Henrik
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 don't think it would be sensible to do so: it would clutter the time interval notation with no clear benefit. In Japan, at the beginning of 2004, copyright protection period of movies, copyright of which were unexpired at that time, was extended by 20 years. But, copyright of some movies expired at the end of 2003. There were disputes in courts and the supreme court judged that copyright of the movies expired. Masataka Ohta
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 automated tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting is just silly. 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... Pity we don't internalize such principles fully. Ned
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
+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 Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:18 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com 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 +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 tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting is just silly. 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... Pity we don't internalize such principles fully. Ned
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 decide it, WONTFIX.) Grüße, Carsten
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 people. Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.) +1. As far as I can tell, the deadline actually serves the purpose of getting people to focus on IETF and update their documents sufficiently prior to the meeting, that it's reasonable to expect meeting participants to read the drafts that they intend to discuss. And I say this as someone who, as an author, has often found the deadline to be very inconvenient. Keith
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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. You got off lightly. The English exported an entire language which got b0rked in the process!
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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... Pity we don't internalize such principles fully. Well, in an odd way we really do internalize most of the core Internet design and architecture rules quite well. When the topic is IETF process, we seem to have an astonishingly consistent preference for choices that go in the opposite direction from what we've learned in creating the technology... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 people. Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.) +1. As far as I can tell, the deadline actually serves the purpose of getting people to focus on IETF and update their documents sufficiently prior to the meeting, that it's reasonable to expect meeting participants to read the drafts that they intend to discuss. And I say this as someone who, as an author, has often found the deadline to be very inconvenient. And your evidence for this is .. what exactly? Yes, the deadline makes the drafts show up a bit sooner, but I rather suspect that the overwhelming majority of people don't bother to do much reading in the inverval. I certainly don't. And given the ready available tools to tell the reader what's changed I don't need to. In almost all cases for -nn where nn 00 I can check what's changed in a few minutes, and I can do it in the context of the actual work being done. I don't really have any objection to a -00 cutoff, but the second cutoff is nothing short of asinine. In any case, I personally have basically stopped caring about the deadline and I encourage others to do the same. If I make the deadline fine, if not I post the update somewhere else, done. Ned
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 is indeed 8pm ET, at least for those in the US. Well, 2400 UTC is 8pm Eastern Daylight (i.e., summer) Time (GMT-4), but 7pm Eastern Standard Time (GMT-5). So I'd ask *when* did the Secretariat tell you that? 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 $ Dale
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 Secretariat before (and recently), and verified this is indeed 8pm ET, at least for those in the US. Well, 2400 UTC is 8pm Eastern Daylight (i.e., summer) Time (GMT-4), but 7pm Eastern Standard Time (GMT-5). So I'd ask *when* did the Secretariat tell you that? 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 like system... Dale
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 $ Requires a Unix like system... Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably be left as an exercise for the reader... Dale
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 UTC' Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013 $ Requires a Unix like system... Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably be left as an exercise for the reader... It could be posted on the Internet Draft submission tool page, including a countdown clock too, if you really want useful ;-) 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. Joe
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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.
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
-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 -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 like system... Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably be left as an exercise for the reader... It could be posted on the Internet Draft submission tool page, including a countdown clock too, if you really want useful ;-) 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. Something like documents published less than two weeks before a WG session cannot be discussed in this session would be better. Also, slides published less than one week before a WG session cannot be used in this session. - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: m...@petit-huguenin.org Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRLRFDAAoJECnERZXWan7EKBMQALd82QtUSxacpAczLjgCU/tO HpJgxvMtTyhAZaa25DO+yB/AQn/wYWTqYWJQNxUmvlZ8u5elux78dLrhJPr5IzGB dG9B7xM9w0OP9CKLDVJOGQxLBOXAblANS809lHF8HmzdXdj1UvgrqOST/g1LNVRr FaEe8yf97F2fOSGN7erX7vmZ+Adf647Au0MhxfwRkEF+me8WEeXIMsYe9+faP/Io 6f+rc0SSBSGZl7/mHE2mfdSwHEwNN/GYR8AHOjq2+GtKmHSogXg0m7UxHjkVZ4Sr bBqtfjYEtMJZx/BZJ9IdoD8n8XRJpnxRz2bPDVw3n5IZxXgF09zATpyp4Q9B1Ie8 T7rjr2k8aYqaiWqnFAwbCMxa+mYWojKJgVUi5tRWsYDtmqxkCWy1iJ6HFHFI8D6v i0Y3HCZL8IHTft3Xkz3D00qxya1/WC/COC/TKoEsZCMk6XAlfua5DcFzPgjcZZIW cAKaWDWz+t4PPxTBPTFgfBIqeMiV+Blor7N3Z9AGzhM+f2zrpih1Tp+gQpcfmXdE b4SjdfAQbNgu0ktDTRWIU1UOUM1UVT1goHnjiw14Shi/9bbuU9yWHOd8CzP1d2LN 6cCi91i1bK2kK17FpL9G7fbeQ/qqJSu/s+6a2gRCVIS8ZnNMXcJAN0hiRpCrLbT2 wToOJQf8npzwUjkJUfeL =QFzZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 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 like system... Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably be left as an exercise for the reader... It could be posted on the Internet Draft submission tool page, including a countdown clock too, if you really want useful ;-) 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. Something like documents published less than two weeks before a WG session cannot be discussed in this session would be better. Also, slides published less than one week before a WG session cannot be used in this session. That's fine, though it still puts minor mods in the same class as complete revisions. Maybe we need a two-tiered numbering system, e.g., major revs cannot occur less than two weeks before a meeting where they will be discussed, but minor mods are OK up to 48 hours in advance. :-) Joe
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 like system... 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 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 time zone indication would be added like somewhere at the top of the page, to each IETF meeting agenda. -Martin
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 before (and recently), and verified this is indeed 8pm ET, at least for those in the US. Well, 2400 UTC is 8pm Eastern Daylight (i.e., summer) Time (GMT-4), but 7pm Eastern Standard Time (GMT-5). So I'd ask *when* did the Secretariat tell you that? well, I can't remember if it was for Paris or Vancouver now that you ask... 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 $ Dale
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 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 time zone indication would be added like somewhere at the top of the page, to each IETF meeting agenda. The good news is the iCalendar data available for the agenda does have the correct timezone specified, so if you import the iCalendar data into your calendar client (of course assuming you use one) then you will be able to view the sessions correctly adjusted to whatever local time you have your client set for. That said, it would still be nice to include the timezone information on the agenda page. It is worth noting that daylight saving time starts on the Sunday morning of the IETF meeting, so all the agenda times are in fact UTC -4 hours for Sunday and later days, but UTC -5 for Saturday. -- Cyrus Daboo
RE: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 24:00 Monday, February 25. I get this: $ date --date='24:00 Feb 25, 2013 UTC' date: invalid date `24:00 Feb 25, 2013 UTC' Seriously, what the heck is 24:00? Is that like the meeting we'll have in the afternoon at about 13:90? Paul
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 of software. Melinda
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 (-01 and up) submissions are due by UTC 24:00 Monday, February 25. I get this: $ date --date='24:00 Feb 25, 2013 UTC' date: invalid date `24:00 Feb 25, 2013 UTC' Seriously, what the heck is 24:00? Is that like the meeting we'll have in the afternoon at about 13:90? The minute which occurs after 23:59 is 00:00 of the following day if you have a leap second, you get 23:59:60 which is fun... Paul
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 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 of software. Melinda
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 that doesn't need to happen in sync with an IETF meeting. Something like documents published less than two weeks before a WG session cannot be discussed in this session would be better. Also, slides published less than one week before a WG session cannot be used in this session. That's fine, though it still puts minor mods in the same class as complete revisions. Maybe we need a two-tiered numbering system, e.g., major revs cannot occur less than two weeks before a meeting where they will be discussed, but minor mods are OK up to 48 hours in advance. :-) You can't bury a recurring-rathole thread like this in the middle of another thread and expect good fireworks! ;-) But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly. Chairs should be able to manage what gets discussed at a face-to-face without an artificial posting moratorium, and it can be done with reasonable discretion for exceptions. But we have had this conversation many times, including at the face-to-face plenary, and we've repeatedly heard that chairs prefer to have this default no in place to reduce the number of arguments they have to have with recalcitrant WG members. And there is an AD-override of the moratorium, so if you do have good reason to post an update, it is allowed. I suggested at one point that a middle ground might be to keep allow submission to a holding pen that would require chair or AD to release it. It didn't garner a lot of excitement. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
RE: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 are reasons. 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 challenging or impossible to prepare an agenda. Perhaps having a soft cut-off is more reasonable. If the document is late, then it would be up to the WG chair to decide whether to entertain it. If there are no documents by the deadline, the chair could decide to cancel the meeting. What one would not want, though, are hundreds of drafts submitted the night before the IETF meeting starts with some expectation of discussion time. Paul
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting is just silly. Margaret
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 challenging or impossible to prepare an agenda. Well, for one thing the IETF does its work on mailing lists, and meetings support that rather than the other way 'round. For another, I'm not sure this deadline makes any difference in practice (other than introducing an inconvenience). We're going to be giving meeting time to a draft for which there's no revision, because it needs meeting time. It's on the agenda whether there's a revision or not. I understand the deadline was introduced to provide incentives for people to get their stuff in in advance of a meeting. But. Melinda
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 melinda.sh...@gmail.comwrote: 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 challenging or impossible to prepare an agenda. Well, for one thing the IETF does its work on mailing lists, and meetings support that rather than the other way 'round. For another, I'm not sure this deadline makes any difference in practice (other than introducing an inconvenience). We're going to be giving meeting time to a draft for which there's no revision, because it needs meeting time. It's on the agenda whether there's a revision or not. I understand the deadline was introduced to provide incentives for people to get their stuff in in advance of a meeting. But. Melinda
Re: [IETF] Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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. Um, maybe. Another way to look at it is that a deadline, any deadline, helps stop folk procrastinating and actually *submit*. Have a look at the number of submissions just before the cutoffs… W -=R On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote: 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 challenging or impossible to prepare an agenda. Well, for one thing the IETF does its work on mailing lists, and meetings support that rather than the other way 'round. For another, I'm not sure this deadline makes any difference in practice (other than introducing an inconvenience). We're going to be giving meeting time to a draft for which there's no revision, because it needs meeting time. It's on the agenda whether there's a revision or not. I understand the deadline was introduced to provide incentives for people to get their stuff in in advance of a meeting. But. Melinda -- I had no shoes and wept. Then I met a man who had no feet. So I said, Hey man, got any shoes you're not using?
Re: [IETF] Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 2:59 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 is disruptive to the development process rather than helpful for it. Um, maybe. Another way to look at it is that a deadline, any deadline, helps stop folk procrastinating and actually *submit*. Have a look at the number of submissions just before the cutoffs… W -=R On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote: 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 challenging or impossible to prepare an agenda. Well, for one thing the IETF does its work on mailing lists, and meetings support that rather than the other way 'round. For another, I'm not sure this deadline makes any difference in practice (other than introducing an inconvenience). We're going to be giving meeting time to a draft for which there's no revision, because it needs meeting time. It's on the agenda whether there's a revision or not. I understand the deadline was introduced to provide incentives for people to get their stuff in in advance of a meeting. But. Melinda -- I had no shoes and wept. Then I met a man who had no feet. So I said, Hey man, got any shoes you're not using?
Re: [IETF] Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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
Re: [IETF] Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
On 27/02/2013, at 9:59 AM, 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 is disruptive to the development process rather than helpful for it. Um, maybe. Another way to look at it is that a deadline, any deadline, helps stop folk procrastinating and actually *submit*. Have a look at the number of submissions just before the cutoffs… I think that's a poor trade-off. As discussed before, the publishing embargo disrupts work that isn't in sync with meetings. This is a tangible and somewhat high price to pay just to serve as a procrastination-buster for those that need it. I'd be willing to deal with an embargo for draft-ietf-*, but don't see at all why it extends to other drafts. Regards, On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote: 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 challenging or impossible to prepare an agenda. Well, for one thing the IETF does its work on mailing lists, and meetings support that rather than the other way 'round. For another, I'm not sure this deadline makes any difference in practice (other than introducing an inconvenience). We're going to be giving meeting time to a draft for which there's no revision, because it needs meeting time. It's on the agenda whether there's a revision or not. I understand the deadline was introduced to provide incentives for people to get their stuff in in advance of a meeting. But. Melinda -- I had no shoes and wept. Then I met a man who had no feet. So I said, Hey man, got any shoes you're not using? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Re: [IETF] Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:16:30 AM Mark Nottingham wrote: I think that's a poor trade-off. As discussed before, the publishing embargo disrupts work that isn't in sync with meetings. This is a tangible and somewhat high price to pay just to serve as a procrastination-buster for those that need it. I'd be willing to deal with an embargo for draft-ietf-*, but don't see at all why it extends to other drafts. Why embargo working group drafts for groups that aren't meeting? It's a pointless roadblock. Scott K
Re: [IETF] Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
I'd be willing to deal with an embargo for draft-ietf-*, but don't see at all why it extends to other drafts. We have software. Embargo drafts for WGs that are actually meeting during the preceding week, leave the others alone.
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 time zone indication would be added like somewhere at the top of the page, to each IETF meeting agenda. I would be nice to have local time zone information. But in a pinch, you can google Time in Orlando to get the answer. As for date --date='...', well, ye shall know the workman by his tools. Dale
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 hand) before the meeting. The notion of an automated tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting is just silly. -1 There are a non-trivial number of people who are intensely busy in the weeks leading up to a meeting, with a high degree of overlap with the set of people we want to be able to actually read the drafts prior to the face to face meeting of the WG. The same argument applies, although to a somewhat lesser extent, to being able to post for groups that are not meeting. Is a few weeks where people cannot post what they want, when they want to; in order for the larger populace of the IETF to be able to focus on the activity in and around the meeting REALLY that much of a burden? Doug
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 because the secretariat needed time to post all of those drafts (by hand) before the meeting. The notion of an automated tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting is just silly. -1 There are a non-trivial number of people who are intensely busy in the weeks leading up to a meeting, with a high degree of overlap with the set of people we want to be able to actually read the drafts prior to the face to face meeting of the WG. The same argument applies, although to a somewhat lesser extent, to being able to post for groups that are not meeting. Is a few weeks where people cannot post what they want, when they want to; in order for the larger populace of the IETF to be able to focus on the activity in and around the meeting REALLY that much of a burden? How does that relate to working groups that aren't meeting? It was silly I had to rush to post a draft on Monday for a WG that's not meeting. Scott K
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 24:00 refers to the very end of the day, and 00:00 refers to the very beginning of the next day. So there's a conceptual distinction involved. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 ferkakte piece of software. I don't think so. ISO (ISO 8601) seems to think that 24:00 refers to the very end of the day, and 00:00 refers to the very beginning of the next day. So there's a conceptual distinction involved. A And to avoid confusion many places use 23:59:59 as end of trading day. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 benefit of the arbitrary 2-weeks-before deadline? Arguably so people can read the drafts, yes I understand that, yet if the active participants don't have time to read it, then it won't get time for discussion at the meeting. If they did, then it will be discussed, and if people feel that it wasn't presented early enough, then they say so on the various venues available, not limited simply to stating so at the microphone. -=R On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us 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 because the secretariat needed time to post all of those drafts (by hand) before the meeting. The notion of an automated tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting is just silly. -1 There are a non-trivial number of people who are intensely busy in the weeks leading up to a meeting, with a high degree of overlap with the set of people we want to be able to actually read the drafts prior to the face to face meeting of the WG. The same argument applies, although to a somewhat lesser extent, to being able to post for groups that are not meeting. Is a few weeks where people cannot post what they want, when they want to; in order for the larger populace of the IETF to be able to focus on the activity in and around the meeting REALLY that much of a burden? Doug
Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Final Submission (version -01 and up) cut-off is today, Monday, February 25, 2013. All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by UTC 24:00. All drafts can be uploaded using the ID submission tool located here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/ The Internet-Draft cutoff dates as well as other significant dates for IETF 86 can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF86 Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, then please send a message to internet-dra...@ietf.org.
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 today, Monday, February 25, 2013. All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by UTC 24:00. All drafts can be uploaded using the ID submission tool located here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/ The Internet-Draft cutoff dates as well as other significant dates for IETF 86 can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF86 Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, then please send a message to internet-dra...@ietf.org.
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
-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 Pacific, now it's 24:00 UTC. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRLAbrAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pJCQQAK05V61dUleo5z+nsodQPNCn Lt98t7543ic48vaYHpwCYv4zT7sbCJ9KJ7bm0gqBHwnsRnUvb2qeLfQTrBGpKHLG ZFLiIVDoTqJjEKzcGoEv6ZupZADjiZZZxAN0c+0o2NWJJFs5Jt1x/88k4fmAPGpo qUGOAUdaQ+ayD4qPYysSiexAJ4kj4x2oSjqWK9SQXJ2LX816mI6YIY75BxF/HniE Hz95w05hVS6h1LNpr5O0DlY44pUHrBEi4jxXF7GVPhA/XvBS1ONRlbWVBz/tsURG SJ1HXkKOWpKegld6HjllqjvkSXIEKcs/xc5L68+pkOmdySQ7SQxl0WBqIXDv0Yul t82W5gUxgkX0XpDE5+SQ3npuseCY77q9HzN3XkzZA1HWTcSMPIUEY7PhgWmuSms6 /aH46hBLVJhOAWDSNieG+lfnJahlvrmTUcZ5l/JJo/AeTbK+cxY8a0NDVit+pi2P wS8XKBuyM5Z1BxqxtozmDAU1HP3qhTt+m/tBNPNkN185MSylDlnWZQVbZ+ZjH5Jq LrO9ELqyPC6Evq0j4V4pltOs0T7yVMw7XFWKZv/cVjkC7fu6ZZ3inMovnjmHfQe/ H+ItSqZuHLMOBuFjioPskdujLWadIt1vpULjsw5tdaton82sruaqIC0NdSh7Sr7C hKLwIVutjXHVvW7b5kzC =60kr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:47 PM, James Polk jmp...@cisco.com 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. 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 today, Monday, February 25, 2013. All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by UTC 24:00. All drafts can be uploaded using the ID submission tool located here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/ The Internet-Draft cutoff dates as well as other significant dates for IETF 86 can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF86 Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, then please send a message to internet-dra...@ietf.org.
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 last week for the -00 cutoff. 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 is indeed 8pm ET, at least for those in the US. James Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRLAbrAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pJCQQAK05V61dUleo5z+nsodQPNCn Lt98t7543ic48vaYHpwCYv4zT7sbCJ9KJ7bm0gqBHwnsRnUvb2qeLfQTrBGpKHLG ZFLiIVDoTqJjEKzcGoEv6ZupZADjiZZZxAN0c+0o2NWJJFs5Jt1x/88k4fmAPGpo qUGOAUdaQ+ayD4qPYysSiexAJ4kj4x2oSjqWK9SQXJ2LX816mI6YIY75BxF/HniE Hz95w05hVS6h1LNpr5O0DlY44pUHrBEi4jxXF7GVPhA/XvBS1ONRlbWVBz/tsURG SJ1HXkKOWpKegld6HjllqjvkSXIEKcs/xc5L68+pkOmdySQ7SQxl0WBqIXDv0Yul t82W5gUxgkX0XpDE5+SQ3npuseCY77q9HzN3XkzZA1HWTcSMPIUEY7PhgWmuSms6 /aH46hBLVJhOAWDSNieG+lfnJahlvrmTUcZ5l/JJo/AeTbK+cxY8a0NDVit+pi2P wS8XKBuyM5Z1BxqxtozmDAU1HP3qhTt+m/tBNPNkN185MSylDlnWZQVbZ+ZjH5Jq LrO9ELqyPC6Evq0j4V4pltOs0T7yVMw7XFWKZv/cVjkC7fu6ZZ3inMovnjmHfQe/ H+ItSqZuHLMOBuFjioPskdujLWadIt1vpULjsw5tdaton82sruaqIC0NdSh7Sr7C hKLwIVutjXHVvW7b5kzC =60kr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 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 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 is indeed 8pm ET, at least for those in the US. James Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRLAbrAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pJCQQAK05V61dUleo5z+nsodQPNCn Lt98t7543ic48vaYHpwCYv4zT7sbCJ9KJ7bm0gqBHwnsRnUvb2qeLfQTrBGpKHLG ZFLiIVDoTqJjEKzcGoEv6ZupZADjiZZZxAN0c+0o2NWJJFs5Jt1x/88k4fmAPGpo qUGOAUdaQ+ayD4qPYysSiexAJ4kj4x2oSjqWK9SQXJ2LX816mI6YIY75BxF/HniE Hz95w05hVS6h1LNpr5O0DlY44pUHrBEi4jxXF7GVPhA/XvBS1ONRlbWVBz/tsURG SJ1HXkKOWpKegld6HjllqjvkSXIEKcs/xc5L68+pkOmdySQ7SQxl0WBqIXDv0Yul t82W5gUxgkX0XpDE5+SQ3npuseCY77q9HzN3XkzZA1HWTcSMPIUEY7PhgWmuSms6 /aH46hBLVJhOAWDSNieG+lfnJahlvrmTUcZ5l/JJo/AeTbK+cxY8a0NDVit+pi2P wS8XKBuyM5Z1BxqxtozmDAU1HP3qhTt+m/tBNPNkN185MSylDlnWZQVbZ+ZjH5Jq LrO9ELqyPC6Evq0j4V4pltOs0T7yVMw7XFWKZv/cVjkC7fu6ZZ3inMovnjmHfQe/ H+ItSqZuHLMOBuFjioPskdujLWadIt1vpULjsw5tdaton82sruaqIC0NdSh7Sr7C hKLwIVutjXHVvW7b5kzC =60kr -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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, 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 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 is indeed 8pm ET, at least for those in the US. Between march 10 and November 3rd DST applies in the USA. Outside that midnight UTC is 1600 Pacific. James Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRLAbrAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pJCQQAK05V61dUleo5z+nsodQPNCn Lt98t7543ic48vaYHpwCYv4zT7sbCJ9KJ7bm0gqBHwnsRnUvb2qeLfQTrBGpKHLG ZFLiIVDoTqJjEKzcGoEv6ZupZADjiZZZxAN0c+0o2NWJJFs5Jt1x/88k4fmAPGpo qUGOAUdaQ+ayD4qPYysSiexAJ4kj4x2oSjqWK9SQXJ2LX816mI6YIY75BxF/HniE Hz95w05hVS6h1LNpr5O0DlY44pUHrBEi4jxXF7GVPhA/XvBS1ONRlbWVBz/tsURG SJ1HXkKOWpKegld6HjllqjvkSXIEKcs/xc5L68+pkOmdySQ7SQxl0WBqIXDv0Yul t82W5gUxgkX0XpDE5+SQ3npuseCY77q9HzN3XkzZA1HWTcSMPIUEY7PhgWmuSms6 /aH46hBLVJhOAWDSNieG+lfnJahlvrmTUcZ5l/JJo/AeTbK+cxY8a0NDVit+pi2P wS8XKBuyM5Z1BxqxtozmDAU1HP3qhTt+m/tBNPNkN185MSylDlnWZQVbZ+ZjH5Jq LrO9ELqyPC6Evq0j4V4pltOs0T7yVMw7XFWKZv/cVjkC7fu6ZZ3inMovnjmHfQe/ H+ItSqZuHLMOBuFjioPskdujLWadIt1vpULjsw5tdaton82sruaqIC0NdSh7Sr7C hKLwIVutjXHVvW7b5kzC =60kr -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Final Submission (version -01 and up) cut-off is today, Monday, February 25, 2013. All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by UTC 24:00. All drafts can be uploaded using the ID submission tool located here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/ The Internet-Draft cutoff dates as well as other significant dates for IETF 86 can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF86 Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, then please send a message to internet-dra...@ietf.org.
Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Final Submission (version -01 and up) Cut-off is today. All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by UTC 24:00 Monday, October 22. All drafts can be uploaded using the ID submission tool located here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/ The Internet-Draft cutoff dates as well as other significant dates for IETF 85 can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2012.html#IETF85 Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, then please send a message to internet-dra...@ietf.org.
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 new drafts coming out, even -00 ones? Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 (00:00 UTC). ... Out of curiosity - why do we still see new drafts coming out, even -00 ones? Some drafts don't get posted immediately because of nits or because the submitter changed the meta-data. These get handled manually. If the draft was submitted in time, it will be posted as soon as the problems are cleared, even if the cut-off date has passed. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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 bugs in the system. There are also documents which have become wg documents, and their counter resets to zero when they cease being individual submissions. presumably there were also the usual trickle of manual submissions which were probably completed last week. Barry ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
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). All drafts can be uploaded using the ID submission tool located here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/ The Internet-Draft cutoff dates as well as other significant dates for IETF 81 can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2011.html#IETF81 Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, then please send a message to internet-dra...@ietf.org. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
