Subject: Draft Cutoff - Why?

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:44:41 +0000

As I co-chair a WG that is not meeting at the next IETF, the I-D cutoff seems more an impediment to continued work than anything else. What was the rationale for it originally, out of curiosity? Maybe to allow participants at F2F meetings to print docs before they left for the meeting? Is this still a necessary practice?

Thanks
Jason

P.S. Its been awhile since I was last a co-chair of a WG so please excuse my asking such a basic question. :-)

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 16:56:44 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: WGChairs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Livingood,
> Jason
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 10:45 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Draft Cutoff - Why?
> 
> As I co-chair a WG that is not meeting at the next IETF, the I-D cutoff
> seems more an impediment to continued work than anything else. What was
> the rationale for it originally, out of curiosity? Maybe to allow
> participants at F2F meetings to print docs before they left for the
> meeting? Is this still a necessary practice?
[acm] 
Hi Jason,

I believe the two week suspension is primarily to give participants time to 
read the many drafts that show-up at or just before the deadline,
so they could come to the mic and say, "I have read the draft, and..."

I think it's still necessary, but for a WG that doesn't plan to meet
I certainly see why you might seek an exemption.

regards,
Al

P.S I used to print a lot of drafts to read/mark-up on the plane, but I 
haven't done that since my laptop battery life and seat-back power
availability got much better!

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:01:01 +0000

> On 22 Oct 2018, at 15:44, Livingood, Jason <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

The evidence is that the cutoff is when a high percentage of the work gets done,, judging by the number of new drafts out this weekend.  Some stats on that would be interesting!

In practice, as chair I liked to have time to re-read all the current drafts in my WG; if these came in a few hours before the meeting, that was impossible.  Having a couple of weeks for people to reflect on the final meeting drafts seems very useful to me.  

It would seem a good idea to not block I-Ds for WGs who are not meeting, but I think as WG chair you can push through I-Ds after the cut-off anyway, if you choose to do so, and new submissions then open on the Monday.

Tim

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:02:15 -0500

Hi, Jason,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:45 AM Livingood, Jason <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> seems more an impediment to continued work than anything else. What was the
> rationale for it originally, out of curiosity? Maybe to allow participants
> at F2F meetings to print docs before they left for the meeting? Is this
> still a necessary practice?
>

If you go back far enough, "originally" one of the reasons was that all
drafts were posted manually by secretariat people who were on airplanes and
trying to get connected at hotels the week before an IETF started, so
that's their least responsive time.

I believe the canonical justification these days is to make sure working
group participants are all thinking about the same text when the meeting
starts - my best story about this was actually a BOF proposal that
proponents were still editing significantly the morning of the BOF
coordination call, and it seemed like no two IAB/IESG members had seen the
same version of the proposal, but same thing with drafts.

Providing a "quiet time" before the meeting, for people to prepare without
having to check for updates and look at diffs, is a related justification.

I've observed previously that preventing submissions for drafts that are
already past Publication Requested doesn't make a lot of sense (by
definition, they shouldn't be active discussions in the working group if
you're asking the IESG to ballot on them), so I could be convinced that the
IETF could tune this restriction a bit, even if keeping it was a good thing
to do in most cases.

Spencer

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 19:02:31 +0200

That’s part of it, an important part. Another part is to ensure that drafts that need to be discussed actually get posted. We have some people - you have observed this - that would like to post their draft five minutes before a working group meeting, and display slides from their laptop, completely cutting out the possibility of remote participation.

It’s about having effective meetings, as Al said, and about respecting people’s time.

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:04:31 -0500

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:02 PM Tim Chown <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The evidence is that the cutoff is when a high percentage of the work gets
> done,, judging by the number of new drafts out this weekend.  Some stats on
> that would be interesting!
>
> In practice, as chair I liked to have time to re-read all the current
> drafts in my WG; if these came in a few hours before the meeting, that was
> impossible.  Having a couple of weeks for people to reflect on the final
> meeting drafts seems very useful to me.
>
> It would seem a good idea to not block I-Ds for WGs who are not meeting,
> but I think as WG chair you can push through I-Ds after the cut-off anyway,
> if you choose to do so, and new submissions then open on the Monday.
>

Speaking only for myself, I've never had a working group chair ask me to
approve a posting during the blackout period for a reason that didn't make
sense, so it's worth remembering that you can talk to your ADs and Do The
Right Thing, even if automatic posting is closed.

Spencer

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:05:35 -0500

On 10/22/18 12:02 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> I've observed previously that preventing submissions for drafts that 
> are already past Publication Requested doesn't make a lot of sense (by 
> definition, they shouldn't be active discussions in the working group 
> if you're asking the IESG to ballot on them), so I could be convinced 
> that the IETF could tune this restriction a bit, even if keeping it 
> was a good thing to do in most cases.

Keep in mind that area directors can and frequently do make exceptions 
to the posting restrictions, for reasons like this (and others), so I'm 
not entirely sure that a change in process is really warranted.

/a

---

From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:08:36 +0000

> > From: Livingood, Jason
> >
> > As I co-chair a WG that is not meeting at the next IETF, the I-D
> > cutoff seems more an impediment to continued work than anything else.
> > What was the rationale for it originally, out of curiosity? Maybe to
> > allow participants at F2F meetings to print docs before they left for
> > the meeting? Is this still a necessary practice?
> [acm]
> Hi Jason,
> 
> read the many drafts that show-up at or just before the deadline, so they
> could come to the mic and say, "I have read the draft, and..."
> 
> I think it's still necessary, but for a WG that doesn't plan to meet I certainly
> see why you might seek an exemption.

I agree with Al as to the reason. But I'd like to suggest that if it's too limiting, you can consider putting the Editor's version of the draft on github. I've got a couple of drafts being managed that way, and I really, really like it. Kudos to all the people putting together tools and instructions to make that work. The slides from the WG Chairs lunch in Montreal have been a great resource. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-edu-sessc-github-for-working-groups-00

In fact, I'd really like to see these slides put on the WG chair resources page so I don't have to keep looking for them in the Montreal proceedings.
Barbara
 
> regards,
> Al
> 
> P.S I used to print a lot of drafts to read/mark-up on the plane, but I haven't
> done that since my laptop battery life and seat-back power availability got
> much better!
> 
> >
> > Thanks
> > Jason
> >
> > P.S. Its been awhile since I was last a co-chair of a WG so please
> > excuse my asking such a basic question. :-)

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:17:47 -0400

I agree with the reasons for the cutoff. But is only meaningful for 
documents that are being discussed at the meeting. Certainly for WGs 
that aren't meeting it is a pain, and serves no purpose.

What if the cutoff was only applied to documents that appear on the 
meeting agenda? It seems like that could be automated.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 10/22/18 1:02 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> Hi, Jason,
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:45 AM Livingood, Jason 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     cutoff seems more an impediment to continued work than anything
>     else. What was the rationale for it originally, out of curiosity?
>     Maybe to allow participants at F2F meetings to print docs before
>     they left for the meeting? Is this still a necessary practice?
> 
> 
> drafts were posted manually by secretariat people who were on airplanes 
> and trying to get connected at hotels the week before an IETF started, 
> so that's their least responsive time.
> 
> coordination call, and it seemed like no two IAB/IESG members had seen 
> the same version of the proposal, but same thing with drafts.
> 
> Providing a "quiet time" before the meeting, for people to prepare 
> without having to check for updates and look at diffs, is a related 
> justification.
> 
> you're asking the IESG to ballot on them), so I could be convinced that 
> the IETF could tune this restriction a bit, even if keeping it was a 
> good thing to do in most cases.
> 
> Spencer
> 
> 
>     Thanks
>     Jason
>

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 20:25:40 +0200

On Oct 22, 2018, at 20:17, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> What if the cutoff was only applied to documents that appear on the meeting agenda? It seems like that could be automated.

Wrong way around: They get on the agenda of a meeting when they have been submitted.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 19:29:40 +0000

On 10/22/18, 1:08 PM, "STARK, BARBARA H" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I agree with Al as to the reason. But I'd like to suggest that if it's too limiting, you can consider putting the Editor's version of the draft on github. I've got a couple of drafts being managed that way, and I really, really like it. Kudos to all the people putting together tools and instructions to make that work.

I've been using GitHub for the WG as well and agree it is quite nice! But I wonder if this may be a case where we're moving out of the I-D / datatracker structure to another one, because it is more flexible (e.g. the cut off passed so just point to the repo for a more recent version). Or perhaps put another way (since I like GitHub), it'd be nice if IETF tools/processes could be as flexible in terms of how/when work is published and updated... 

Anyway - thanks for everyone answering the original history on this!

JL

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:03:26 -0400

> Wrong way around: They get on the agenda of a meeting when they have been submitted.

Huh? I don't have to submit just before the meeting to get on the agenda.

For this meeting, the final agendas were due on the 12th, and the cutoff 
date for submissions is the 22nd. My point is, the cutoff date can still 
be the 22nd, but it would only apply to documents listed in the agenda. 
Documents not listed in the agenda would have no cutoff date.

Of course, for documents updated between the final agenda date and the 
cutoff date, the "final" agenda needs to be tweaked to reflect the last 
submitted version, but that is no different from current practice. 
(Whether it actually happens or not.)

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 23:27:20 +0200

> On Oct 22, 2018, at 23:03, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> For this meeting, the final agendas were due on the 12th,

That was the overall agenda (WGs allocated into the week).
The WG agendas are due later this week:
 • 2018-10-24 (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by UTC 23:59
and then
 • 2018-10-29 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by UTC 23:59. 

No panic, just yet :-)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 18:23:56 -0500

> For this meeting, the final agendas were due on the 12th, 
Where did you get that idea? Are you perhaps confusing the final "these 
groups will meet at these times" deadline with the "the group's agenda 
is X" deadlines?

 From <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/>
# *2018-10-24 (Wednesday):* Draft Working Group agendas due by UTC 23:59. 
Upload using the Meeting Materials Management Tool 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials>.
# *2018-10-29 (Monday):* Revised Working Group agendas due by UTC 23:59. 
Upload using the Meeting Materials Management Tool 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials>.
> and the cutoff date for submissions is the 22nd. My point is, the 
> cutoff date can still be the 22nd, but it would only apply to 
> documents listed in the agenda. Documents not listed in the agenda 
> would have no cutoff date.
>
> cutoff date, the "final" agenda needs to be tweaked to reflect the 
> last submitted version, but that is no different from current 
> practice. (Whether it actually happens or not.)
>
>     Thanks,
>     Paul
>

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 22:21:59 -0400

>   • 2018-10-29 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by UTC 23:59.

OK, sorry. But my point still holds. I would suggest that the cutoff 
date for drafts be the same as the deadline for revised wg agendas, and 
apply to the documents listed in those agendas.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:14:00 +0800

Paul,

inline plz

> apply to the documents listed in those agendas.

With all due respect, but I can't see that work. At least not from a wg
chair perspective. Normally a working group chair will do a quick
read of all drafts that goes on the agenda. If you place the cut of and
final agenda at the same date, I will either have to palce drafts on the
agenda blindly or delay the agenda. We hear from ADs that we need to
manage the discussions at the f2f meetings better, can't do that if I
haven't read the documents.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:12:08 -0400

On 10/23/18 12:14 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>>>>> What if the cutoff was only applied to documents that appear on 
>>>>>> the meeting agenda? It seems like that could be automated.
>> date for drafts be the same as the deadline for revised wg agendas, 
>> and apply to the documents listed in those agendas.
> 

I think this is a matter of tweaking the dates.

Normally you aren't getting a -00 on the cutoff date and being asked to 
put it on the agenda. The worst case I know of is that someone posts a 
"placeholder" -00, and based on that asks for time on the agenda. Then 
it is replaced by a radically expanded -01 on the cutoff date. This is a 
problem for the chair in any case.

One possibility would be to make the cutoff date match the preliminary 
wg agenda date rather than the final agenda date. This would make it 
possible that a document is added that wasn't on the preliminary agenda. 
It would then need to have a cutoff imposed on it as well.

But my point is that it should only be documents that will be on the 
agenda that should be subject to a cutoff. Finding the exact formula for 
the cutoff date is a secondary question that can consider all of these 
issues.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:49:37 -0700

I'm not a particularly big fan of the cut-off, but this just seems like
over-engineering.

As has been noted, if you miss the cut-off, the AD can approve it, and if
there are plenty of other ways to disseminate your document that don't
involve it being an I-D. I'd be fine if we were to just remove the cut-off,
but if we are to have one, I'd rather keep it simple.

-Ekr

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:51:14 -0500

> and apply to the documents listed in those agendas.
That only works if you have contributors that _tell_ chairs what drafts 
they expect to submit long before the deadline.
History shows that contributors learn things in the last minutes of 
preparing the drafts that cause them to change, so what they _expect_ to 
submit and what they actually submitted don't line up.
The current structure is there to allow the chairs to assess what 
materials are actually available for a meaningful meeting and to prepare 
an agenda accordingly.

I don't see how tweaking the cutoff dates will really make this easier, 
or make for better outcomes (shy of removing the cutoff date, but then 
we get into the different set of problems with people expecting groups 
to make decisions on input they haven't had a chance to read and think 
about.)

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 16:01:50 -0400

> to make decisions on input they haven't had a chance to read and think 

OK, whatever.

I still think it is silly to impose a cutoff on drafts that are not to 
be discussed at the meeting, however that distinction is made.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:08:16 -0500

> be discussed at the meeting, however that distinction is made. 

I've been on both the area director side and the draft author side of 
requesting exceptions to the deadline in the past. I have neither 
declined such a request nor had such a request declined. I think 
granting such exceptions is pretty much pro forma, but it does serve as 
a bit of a forcing function to make sure that the documents are 
typically available with enough lead time before the meeting for working 
groups to properly consider them. I agree with Robert that we don't want 
to overly complicate this.

/a

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:19:21 +0200

To start cracking on the edges of the holy blackout time:

Why should this draft cutoff time equally apply to drafts in IESG review ?
It seems to me as if the timelines for those drafts are fairly
orthogonal to IETF meeting times given how updates to those drafts do
not target WG/WG-chairs primarily, and cycles for AD or delegated area
reviewer will also not necessarily closely relate to IETF meetings times
as those of drafts targeted for WGs.

Sure, as post below says, one can always ask for exceptions, but when
the rule isn't good, exceptions aren't good either as a standard measure. 
Besides, AD's already have enough on their plate and shouldn't have to
bother about unnecessary exception handling when instead refinement
of the rules would make those exceptions redundant.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 03:08:16PM -0500, Adam Roach wrote:
> requesting exceptions to the deadline in the past. I have neither declined
> such a request nor had such a request declined. I think granting such
> exceptions is pretty much pro forma, but it does serve as a bit of a forcing
> function to make sure that the documents are typically available with enough
> lead time before the meeting for working groups to properly consider them. I
> agree with Robert that we don't want to overly complicate this.
> 
> /a

-- 
---
[email-masked]

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 01:24:34 +0000

Without data, all of our arguments are just opinions.

@ADs - how many exception requests have you received this year
during the submission blackout?

Al

> From: WGChairs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Toerless
> Eckert
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:19 PM
> To: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Draft Cutoff - Why?
> 
> declined

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:03:05 -0500

> during the submission blackout?

I honestly can't remember, because they're just one line emails to the 
secretariat. That does not rise to the level of something that's going 
to stick in my memory. I would estimate maybe one? Maybe two? Could be more.

/a

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:35:36 -0500

> to stick in my memory. I would estimate maybe one? Maybe two? Could be more.

Similarly here, but my estimate is zero or one.

-Benjamin

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 22:55:19 -0400

Hi Al,

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 9:24 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I have received on average 2-3 requests per year (~1 per meeting cycle).

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:20:43 +0800

Folks,

It varies a lot over time, we almost never get any exception requests
for -00 drafts; it more people with establsihed drafts that for one
reason have missed the cut-off; or (not less important) where I did
not get an update in time, but want to have the draft on the agenda,

Basically not a problem, the secretariat is very quick to do this.

Maybe one request per every 2nd and 3rd meeting cycle.

Basicaly the cut off helps, it is not a problem.

/Loa

--

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:53:57 -0500

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 9:55 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Al,
> 

Based on just my memory, I think I have had the same experience as Suresh.

Usually, but not always, the requests have been for drafts that are not up for discussion that week--typically drafts that are at the IESG review or later stage.

I’ve never turned one down, but I don’t think people like to ask. (Maybe that’s the real forcing function for timely submission.)

Ben.

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:20:09 +0200

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:54 AM Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Usually, but not always, the requests have been for drafts that are not up
> for discussion that week--typically drafts that are at the IESG review or
> later stage.
>
> I’ve never turned one down, but I don’t think people like to ask. (Maybe
> that’s the real forcing function for timely submission.)

Indeed.
Wearing both an AD and author hats, I think the cutoff is useful — some of
us are interrupt driven, and I’ve frequently had the draft deadline “force”
me to actually sit down and make the darn changes I’ve been meaning to make
for the past 2.5 months!

Wearing past WG chair hat - even when my group isn’t meeting, the deadline
has often caused new long promised versions to be posted.

If the WG is meeting, having the documents be (at lease somewhat) stable
allows WG participants, chairs and ADs to read the documents (often on the
plane!) to prepare.

Anyway, answering the question - I’ve probably approved around 4 past
deadline postings. The fact that the non-normative versions of documents
are often on GitHub or similar seems to have reduced this (small) “pressure”

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf