Subject: Clarification of I-D Submission Deadlines

From: IETF Executive Director <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:34:08 -0500

Dear IETF Working Group Chairs:

I am sending this message in response to the discussion thread initiated by 
Adrian Farrel's request that the Secretariat clarify the rules and 
procedures related to the cutoff time for Internet-Draft 
submissions.  Actually, most of the relevant issues have already been 
addressed by the collective...and for the most part accurate...observations 
of the individuals that participated in the discussion.  However, I thought 
that it would be useful to provide some additional clarifications.  Here goes:

(1) What is the rule?

Internet-Drafts must be *submitted* by 09:00 ET on the cutoff date, where 
*submitted* means *submitted* :-)

(2) When an Internet-Draft is submitted very close to the cutoff time, how 
does the Secretariat account for the delay between the time the draft is 
submitted and the time the draft is received?

The Secretariat includes a "grace period" after the cutoff time.  This 
grace period is normally more than sufficient to ensure that documents 
submitted close to the deadline are received and accepted for posting.

(3) Does the Secretariat check time stamps?

As some participants in the e-mail discussion noted, time stamps can be 
manipulated and may not be accurate.  However, we do check time stamps if 
need be.  We sometimes check them towards the end of the grace period to 
confirm that the grace period is reasonable.  We also check them if a 
submitter inquires about the status of an Internet-Draft that he or she is 
certain was submitted prior to the cutoff.

Please be assured that we make every effort to post all legitimate 
submissions.  We realize that within any group there are always some 
individuals who believe that (a) "rules are made to be broken," and (b) 
"rules apply to everyone else but me."  We assume that such individuals are 
rare among IETF participants, and that time-stamp manipulation is the 
exception (rather than the rule :-)  The bottom line is: when in doubt, we 
give the benefit of the doubt to the submitter.

(4) If an Internet-Draft is submitted very close to...but definitely 
before...the cutoff time, then why does the submitter sometimes receive a 
message indicating that the draft was not submitted in time?

The template for the auto-response message is changed at exactly 09:00 ET 
on the cutoff date.  As a result, depending on the length of the delay, 
someone who submits an Internet-Draft very close to the deadline may 
receive an erroneous message indicating that his or her draft was not 
submitted in time.  If we waited until the end of the grace period before 
changing the auto-response message, then someone who submits an 
Internet-Draft after the deadline would receive an erroneous message 
indicating that his or her draft will be posted.  So there are consequences 
either way.

(5) If a submitter is certain that he or she hit the send button prior to 
the cutoff time but receives the dreaded auto-response message anyway, then 
what should he or she do?

The Secretariat receives hundreds of Internet-Drafts immediately preceding 
an IETF meeting, and it can take several days to process and post them 
all.  Therefore, the best course of action is to wait a few days and check 
to see if the draft has been posted and announced.  If an Internet-Draft 
that was submitted very close to the deadline has not been posted and 
announced within three days, then the submitter should send a message to 
[email-masked] (using the suggested subject line "Status of I-D 
Submission: <filename>") and reference the auto-response acknowledgement 
for the document in the body of the message.  The Secretariat will be happy 
to investigate the situation and post any valid submission that was not 
posted in the first round.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments about 
these issues.  As always, your suggestions for improving the process are 
always welcome.

Regards,

Barbara
-----------------------------------------------
Barbara B. Fuller
Acting Executive Director
Internet Engineering Task Force

Natick, Massachusetts Office:
Phone: +1-508-650-4020
Fax:     +1-508-650-4639

Reston, Virginia Office:
Phone: +1-703-620-9053
Fax:     +1-703-620-9071

---

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:27:59 +1100

Dear Barbara,

Thanks for your clear description of the process used.

It sounds reasonable.  It may also stop so many questions.

Would you consider having this made into a short BCP or
informational document, so that it can be linked from
the meeting website around events (in the important dates section)?

You may need to wait until the drafts submission re-opens though ;)

Yours Faithfully,

Greg Daley

IETF Executive Director wrote:
> I am sending this message in response to the discussion thread initiated 
> by Adrian Farrel's request that the Secretariat clarify the rules and 
> procedures related to the cutoff time for Internet-Draft submissions.  
> Actually, most of the relevant issues have already been addressed by the 
> collective...and for the most part accurate...observations of the 
> individuals that participated in the discussion.  However, I thought 
> Internet-Drafts must be *submitted* by 09:00 ET on the cutoff date, 
> where *submitted* means *submitted* :-)
> 
> (2) When an Internet-Draft is submitted very close to the cutoff time, 
> how does the Secretariat account for the delay between the time the 
> draft is submitted and the time the draft is received?
> 
> manipulated and may not be accurate.  However, we do check time stamps 
> if need be.  We sometimes check them towards the end of the grace period 
> to confirm that the grace period is reasonable.  We also check them if a 
> submitter inquires about the status of an Internet-Draft that he or she 
> is certain was submitted prior to the cutoff.
> 
> "rules apply to everyone else but me."  We assume that such individuals 
> are rare among IETF participants, and that time-stamp manipulation is 
> the exception (rather than the rule :-)  The bottom line is: when in 
> doubt, we give the benefit of the doubt to the submitter.
> 
> before...the cutoff time, then why does the submitter sometimes receive 
> a message indicating that the draft was not submitted in time?
> 
> The template for the auto-response message is changed at exactly 09:00 
> ET on the cutoff date.  As a result, depending on the length of the 
> delay, someone who submits an Internet-Draft very close to the deadline 
> may receive an erroneous message indicating that his or her draft was 
> not submitted in time.  If we waited until the end of the grace period 
> before changing the auto-response message, then someone who submits an 
> indicating that his or her draft will be posted.  So there are 
> consequences either way.
> 
> (5) If a submitter is certain that he or she hit the send button prior 
> to the cutoff time but receives the dreaded auto-response message 
> anyway, then what should he or she do?
> 
> The Secretariat receives hundreds of Internet-Drafts immediately 
> preceding an IETF meeting, and it can take several days to process and 
> post them all.  Therefore, the best course of action is to wait a few 
> days and check to see if the draft has been posted and announced.  If an 
> Internet-Draft that was submitted very close to the deadline has not 
> been posted and announced within three days, then the submitter should 
> send a message to [email-masked] (using the suggested subject line 
> "Status of I-D Submission: <filename>") and reference the auto-response 
> acknowledgement for the document in the body of the message.  The 
> Secretariat will be happy to investigate the situation and post any 
> valid submission that was not posted in the first round.
>

---

From: Tom Pusateri <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:42:08 -0800

Thanks for the description.

Can you explain why drafts received after the cut-off are discarded
as opposed to queued for processing after the restricted period ends?

Thanks,
Tom

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:24:21 +0100

That's a policy matter, not a secretariat matter, so I'll take a whack....

the last times when we last discussed this issue, the conclusion was that 
an I-D that came in just after the deadline, and was an active work item of 
a working group, would likely have enough input from people during the 
meeting despite not being posted that the submitter would be likely to want 
to change it after the meeting. Thus, having his pre-meeting thoughts show 
up after the meeting as a "new" I-D could cause confusion, or even 
embarassment.

Conversely, having the I-D submission be open as soon as the meeting starts 
was justified by arguing that as soon as the first WG session is over, 
people should be able to send in new I-Ds based on the work from that 
session, without having to wait for the week to end before they sent it.

Explainable?

               Harald