On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, scott bradner wrote:
> > If your "reduce the load enough that things can be > > gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the > > meetings" hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would > > already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or > > the Secretariat and discussed with the community-- about how > > much closer the deadlines could be moved, > > fwiw > > without changing the rules the closest we can get is two weeks > > see RFC 2418 section 7.1 > > All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be > published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before > a session starts. That is a *should* ... as written, not a MUST. Which with an automated tool would allow the WG chair to over-ride. Secondly, 'session' in my usage would be the WG session to discuss the draft. So for a Thursday WG session, the deadline would still be met, 1-1/2 weeks before the IETF meeting, not two weeks... Dave Morris _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
