Re: I-D Renewal

With regard to the question of cutoffs, while I sympathize with the 
sense of bait-and-switch that sometimes occurs with changes to drafts 
after the meeting starts, I think your proposal misses the point.

I hope that topics deserving attention continue to be discussed on WG 
email lists after the current draft cutoff).  I would hope and expect 
that if those discussions are fruitful, the presentation about the draft 
reflects those discussions.  Asking that the presentations be submitted 
two weeks (or even 1 week) in advance, while it would make my job as 
chair easier, seems to defeat the purpose.  So please don't require 
advance submission of presentations.  (Note that we do now ask WG chairs 
to determine agendas well in advance, and most working groups I deal 
with, while they will make changes late if there is a good reason, try 
to stick to the posted agenda.)

Yours,

Joel

On 4/5/2026 11:50 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Yes, automated updates that have no content are bad. But the rules 
> make them necessary.So people are going to be wasting other people's 
> time with content free updates until the rules are changed.
>
> Blame the rules, not the people having to work round them.
>
> I have a large system with multiple connected drafts some of which 
> have been essentially stable for 5 years or more. When I write a new 
> draft that builds on that existing functionality, I have to update all 
> the drafts because otherwise the very people who consider draft expiry 
> to be holy scripture would be sneering about references to expired drafts.
>
>
> We could also improve matters by eliminating the draft update cutoff 
> and replacing it with a cutoff on accepting presentations and drafts 
> in the meeting materials manager. People should be able to decide 
> whether they are going to attend a meeting on the basis of what is 
> discussed before the early registration cutoff.
>
> The current system of freezing drafts and then allowing updates after 
> the meeting starts allows people to do some of the dirtiest of tricks 
> I have seen in a standards process.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 3:41 PM Brian E Carpenter 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     On 01-Apr-26 21:11, Julian Reschke wrote:
>     > Am 01.04.2026 um 09:00 schrieb Rob Sayre:
>     >> Julian Reschke <[email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>     >>   > Please don't unless you're actually making changes to the
>     draft's
>     >> contents.
>     >>
>     >> Hi,
>     >>
>     >> That's the point, though. People frequently make these content-free
>     >> updates manually to avoid expiry.
>     >
>     > Which is a bad idea.
>
>     +1
>
>     >
>     >> This part can be automated.
>     >
>     > Which makes it worse.
>
>     +1
>
>     >
>     >> An easier option is just removing expiry from I-Ds . They do
>     not in fact
>     >> expire anyway, so it's just a ceremony.
>
>     +1
>
>     >
>     > Yes, but that's a different thing.
>
>     Just to note that this anachronism is one of the targets of
>     draft-carpenter-gendispatch-anachronisms, which has been
>     dispatched for possible future consideration by PROCON.
>
>         Brian
>
>