Subject: RE: internet draft backlog

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 20:32:22 -0500

There is one variant I'd like to suggest- using a different cut-off 
date for 00 drafts. To me, getting minimal notice for a 05 draft isn't 
THAT big a problem if you read 04, but getting a draft of a completely 
new set of concepts IS a big problem.

Spencer

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 02:30:53 -0500

>new set of concepts IS a big problem.

So, you'd like us (for example) to use a four week cut-off for -00 draftsm
and half that for other drafts?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
	Opportunity doesn't knock anymore; now it emails

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 06:54:08 -0800 (PST)

> and half that for other drafts?

NO, that would be absurd. It is incredibly simplistic to expect that a
brief -00 draft written to summarize believed concensus or at least a
heavily discussed position requires more time to absorb than a -05
draft which might be a major revision with substantial changes to the
-04.

There is no reasonable way to correlate time to absorb material with
naming. It depends on too many subjective factors.

It always seems like the shoemaker's children don't get shoes. Right now,
it appears that the draft submission process is broken and sorely in
need of the kind of network application support that the IETF should
have lots of expertise with.

We have different meeting fees based upon time of registration, I presume
to encourage registration behavior which reduces secretariat staff 
workload.

We could implement a straight forward draft sumbmission process using
a WWW form. Use the form and associated processing to do the scutt work
of draft handling. To insure some semblence of order, use the web 
process to stage new/revised drafts for a final quick human check.
Acceptable drafts (by what ever rules already exist) would require a
single button click to store.

Such a process could even support WG based draft deadlines for ietf
(vs. individual) drafts. Even allow the WG chair to accept late drafts,
etc.

New draft name assignment would be reasonable to have an earlier cutoff
for than actual submission.

The current manual process could be retained for those unwilling/unable
to use the automated process AND it would be very reasonable to  
establish a significantly earlier deadline for manual submissions.

I suspect that such an automated process could be justified in terms
of actually hiring a competent consultant to do the implementation
based on substantially reduced staff costs associated with handling
drafts over a couple of years.  Not counting the potential for 
reducing the frustration of many many volunteers.

Dave Morris

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 01:29:10 -0500

>single button click to store.

We run some set of checks on a draft before posting it - I could imagine
this happening on level 01 through -99 drafts, but not level 00 drafts.

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 06:48:41 -0800 (PST)

> this happening on level 01 through -99 drafts, but not level 00 drafts.

What ever checks are performed now would be easier and faster with
standardized input format and the data organized for those checks. I 
could speculate as well that those checks might be automated to some
degree as well, even to just tell the draft editor that certain
processing had been performed and exceptions noted as follows...

Dave Morris