Subject: Approval to Post Version -00 Internet-Drafts for the 62nd IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, MN

From: Internet-Drafts Administrator <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:59:25 -0500

Dear IETF Working Group Chairs:

In order to expedite the processing of the many version -00 I-Ds that 
the Secretariat  receives before an IETF meeting, we ask that you please 
notify the Secretariat prior to the initial submission cutoff date of all 
version -00 I-Ds that you expect to approve for posting as WG documents.  
Please send the filenames of your approved -00 I-Ds to [email-masked] 
by no later than five (5) business days prior to the cutoff date for -00 submissions, 
or by Monday, February 7th at 9:00 AM ET for the 62nd IETF Meeting. Please include 
the word "Approved I-Ds" in the "Subject" field. This procedure will help to ensure 
that version -00 I-Ds are posted in a timely manner, allowing more time for review 
by the public.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

The Internet-Drafts Administrator

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:25:41 -0000

Hi,

Could you please clarify the cut-off for draft submissions.

The usual thing has happened: viz. someone sends the submission minutes
before the deadline, but it doesn't arrive until afterwards.

Of course, it is clear that people should be more careful with their
last-minute submissions, but the rules for submission are slightly unclear
since they say...

     February 21, Monday - Internet Draft final submission cut-off by
09:00 ET (14:00 GMT)

To most people "submission" does not imply receipt, but means dispatch.

Do you check the timestamp on the submission email, or do you operate the
cut-off by time of receipt?

In either case, could you please clarify the rules for future meetings.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:50:35 -0500

The only way to have a deadline is to define it by 'arrival'.
next time tell your authors the deadline is 1 hour before it actually
is :-) that works wonders.

         Olafur

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:33:13 -0500

>before the deadline, but it doesn't arrive until afterwards.
I couldn't agree more - it doesn't take 15 minutes for an E-mail with an 
attached draft to be
delivered to ietf.org. Yet at 9:35 AM (EST) a draft submitted cira 8:45 
AM was rejected as missing
the cut-off. It reminds of restaurants where the employees put the 
chairs on the tables and start
mopping the floor 30 minutes before they're scheduled to close :^) 

Of course, the same aggressive puctuality isn't applied to posting the 
draft agenda or firming
up the final agenda.

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:58:22 -0000

Olafur,

> is :-) that works wonders.

No-one debates that the sensible thing to do is submit three days in
advance of the deadline.

But actually, given the fact that Megatron seems to sit on emails for
upwards of an hour, wouldn't it be normal to do what most tax offices,
prize draws and so forth do? That is, tkae the date and time of the
postmark.

Anyway, all I'm asking for is a clear statement of the rules. Then we can
all abide by them.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:22:18 -0500

Acee Lindem wrote:

> I couldn't agree more - it doesn't take 15 minutes for an E-mail with 
> an attached draft to be
> delivered to ietf.org. Yet at 9:35 AM (EST) a draft submitted cira 
> 8:45 AM was rejected as missing

My rejected 12th hour draft was, in fact, posted.  Hence, I guess either 
authors are given the
benefit of beating the deadline  or our complaints were heard. Anyway, 
I'm happy.

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:04:36 -0500

On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 13:58, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>  wouldn't it be normal to do what most tax offices,

At least in the US, the postmark is affixed by the post office 
(a more or less neutral third party).

Email "Date:" headers are created by the sending system.  Someone who
was late could their system clock back half an hour to sneak in under the
deadline.

						- Bill

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:24:56 +0200

Acee Lindem wrote:

> the cut-off.

I also have experienced delays in the submission rush...
in the order of half an hour or even an hour before you
get the automated response. Since many people have
experienced this, its probably a bottleneck somewhere
towards the secretariat or in the submissions e-mail
system itself.

But note that the secretariat is actually employing common
sense when they process the submissions -- the automated
response comes from a machine but someone seems to actually
look at the submissions. My experience has been they are
quite nice to you in this process, and you are likely to get
your draft posted anyway if you sent it in time. Same
goes for various problems that sometimes occur, such
as some accidents to the text file content; they have
been very helpful in fixing issues like that, even after
the deadline. Thanks for that!

--Jari

---

From: Tom Pusateri <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:13:22 -0800

>In either case, could you please clarify the rules for future meetings.

I am puzzled as to why internet-drafts posted after the "cut-off"
are discarded.

I don't understand the need for a window where drafts are not accepted
in an inbox.

It certainly makes sense to have a point at which new drafts are not
processed immediately because there is other work to be done for the
upcoming meeting but why shouldn't drafts just sit in the inbox until
after the meeting and processing resumed?

No one should have to resubmit a draft if it doesn't make the cutoff.
Can someone explain the reasoning behind this decision?

Thanks,
Tom

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:46:52 +0200

Hi Tom,

> I am puzzled as to why internet-drafts posted after the "cut-off"
(snip)
> Can someone explain the reasoning behind this decision?

I think the IETF could probably do this either way. But
I thought I'd just note that, at least for me, a draft
submitted (successfully or not) may not be that relevant
after a meeting. Typically people still find time to
discuss their drafts, or at least observe what others
have done, so they end up writing a new revision, or
even abandoning the proposal in favor of something
else.

--Jari