Subject: Re: Clarification of I-D Submission Deadlines

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:35:24 -0000

Barbara,

Thanks, this is excellent!

Greg's suggestion to refine and publish is also a nice idea.

Regards,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "IETF Executive Director" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 2:34 AM
Subject: Clarification of I-D Submission Deadlines

> 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: IETF Executive Director <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:17:52 -0500

Hi Greg:

At 10:27 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>Dear Barbara,
>
>Thanks for your clear description of the process used.

You're very welcome.

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

...a good thing to the extent that fewer questions reflect greater 
understanding.

>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)?

As you may be aware, the Tools Team is developing specifications for an I-D 
submission tool.  Once this tool is in place, there is a good chance that 
many draft submission procedures will be modified.  Therefore, I hesitate 
to institutionalize submission-related procedures in the form of an RFC at 
this time.

However, your point is well taken, and I agree that the procedures in 
question should be readily available to the community.  Bill Fenner is 
currently updating the IESG document "Guidelines to Authors of 
Internet-Drafts," and has offered to include the information in the 
update.  In addition, I will revise the wording of the auto-response 
messages to clearly state that drafts submitted prior to the deadline will 
indeed be posted.

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

Ouch!!

>Yours Faithfully,
>Greg Daley

Best Regards,

Barbara
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF Executive Director wrote:
>>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 
>>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 
>>is certain was submitted prior to the cutoff.
>>are rare among IETF participants, and that time-stamp manipulation is the 
>>we give the benefit of the doubt to the submitter.
>>before...the cutoff time, then why does the submitter sometimes receive a 
>>The template for the auto-response message is changed at exactly 09:00 ET 
>>submitted in time.  If we waited until the end of the grace period before 
>>consequences either way.
>>(5) If a submitter is certain that he or she hit the send button prior to 
>>then what should he or she do?
>>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.
------------------------------------------------------
Barbara B. Fuller
Acting Executive Director
Internet Engineering Task Force

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