Subject: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today

From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:05:32 -0800

This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Final Submission (version -01
and up) cut-off is today, Monday, February 25, 2013. 

All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by UTC 24:00.

All drafts can be uploaded using the ID submission tool located here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/

The Internet-Draft cutoff dates as well as other significant dates for IETF 86 can be found at: 
https://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF86

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any  questions or concerns, then please send a message to [email-masked].

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:47:02 -0600

The ID upload tool says the deadline has passed, yet a decade or more 
the deadline has been 8pm ET/5pm PT. That's 15 minutes from now.

What gives?

James

At 11:05 AM 2/25/2013, IETF Secretariat wrote:

>Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have 
>any  questions or concerns, then please send a message to 
>[email-masked].

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:50:52 -0700

On 2/25/13 5:47 PM, James Polk wrote:
> The ID upload tool says the deadline has passed, yet a decade or
> more the deadline has been 8pm ET/5pm PT. That's 15 minutes from
> now.

I had the same problem last week for the -00 cutoff.

It used to be 5 PM Pacific, now it's 24:00 UTC.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:50:59 -0500

As has been true for a few years, the deadline is midnight UTC Monday
and not dependent on any particular United States time zone. The
Important Dates information and reminder messages all state this.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:47 PM, James Polk <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The ID upload tool says the deadline has passed, yet a decade or more the
> deadline has been 8pm ET/5pm PT. That's 15 minutes from now.
>
> What gives?
>
> James
>
>> Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any
>> questions or concerns, then please send a message to

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:58:11 -0600

At 06:50 PM 2/25/2013, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>

It's always been 2400 UTC, but with all the daylight savings time 
adjustments from country to country changing from year to year, I 
have talked to the Secretariat before (and recently), and verified 
this is indeed 8pm ET, at least for those in the US.

James

>Peter
>
>- --
>Peter Saint-Andre
>https://stpeter.im/
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
>iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRLAbrAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pJCQQAK05V61dUleo5z+nsodQPNCn
>Lt98t7543ic48vaYHpwCYv4zT7sbCJ9KJ7bm0gqBHwnsRnUvb2qeLfQTrBGpKHLG
>ZFLiIVDoTqJjEKzcGoEv6ZupZADjiZZZxAN0c+0o2NWJJFs5Jt1x/88k4fmAPGpo
>qUGOAUdaQ+ayD4qPYysSiexAJ4kj4x2oSjqWK9SQXJ2LX816mI6YIY75BxF/HniE
>Hz95w05hVS6h1LNpr5O0DlY44pUHrBEi4jxXF7GVPhA/XvBS1ONRlbWVBz/tsURG
>SJ1HXkKOWpKegld6HjllqjvkSXIEKcs/xc5L68+pkOmdySQ7SQxl0WBqIXDv0Yul
>t82W5gUxgkX0XpDE5+SQ3npuseCY77q9HzN3XkzZA1HWTcSMPIUEY7PhgWmuSms6
>/aH46hBLVJhOAWDSNieG+lfnJahlvrmTUcZ5l/JJo/AeTbK+cxY8a0NDVit+pi2P
>wS8XKBuyM5Z1BxqxtozmDAU1HP3qhTt+m/tBNPNkN185MSylDlnWZQVbZ+ZjH5Jq
>LrO9ELqyPC6Evq0j4V4pltOs0T7yVMw7XFWKZv/cVjkC7fu6ZZ3inMovnjmHfQe/
>H+ItSqZuHLMOBuFjioPskdujLWadIt1vpULjsw5tdaton82sruaqIC0NdSh7Sr7C
>hKLwIVutjXHVvW7b5kzC
>=60kr
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:02:07 +1100

Don't think so:

mnot-mini:~> date -u
Tue 26 Feb 2013 01:01:29 UTC

On 26/02/2013, at 11:58 AM, James Polk <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It's always been 2400 UTC, but with all the daylight savings time adjustments from country to country changing from year to year, I have talked to the Secretariat before (and recently), and verified this is indeed 8pm ET, at least for those in the US.
> 
> James
> 
> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> - --
>> Peter Saint-Andre
>> https://stpeter.im/
>> 
>> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:46:07 -0800

>> It's always been 2400 UTC, but with all the daylight savings time adjustments from country to country changing from year to year, I have talked to the Secretariat before (and recently), and verifi…
Between march 10 and November 3rd DST applies in the USA. Outside that 
midnight UTC is 1600 Pacific.

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:01:07 -0500 (EST)

> From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
> 

Well, 2400 UTC is 8pm Eastern Daylight (i.e., summer) Time (GMT-4),
but 7pm Eastern Standard Time (GMT-5).  So I'd ask *when* did the
Secretariat tell you that?

Personally, I'd trust "date -u" much sooner than any random person.
Even better:

    $ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
    Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
    $ 

Dale

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:12:10 +0100

>    Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
Requires a Unix like system...

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:18:27 -0900

> Requires a Unix like system...

I find these Linux-isms to be an abomination (remember when Unix
users used to know how to use Unix?  Seems like ages and ages ago).

I use timeanddate.com quite a bit, myself.  It's got some handy
calculators.

Melinda

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:23:51 -0800

> Requires a Unix like system...
Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably  be left as an exercise 
for the reader...

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:39:42 -0800

> Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably  be left as an exercise

It could be posted on the Internet Draft submission tool page, including 
a "countdown clock" too, if you really want useful  ;-)

Then again, having these deadlines at all is a bit silly.

It just forces authors to "informally distribute" updates directly on 
the list, and cuts off access to work that doesn't need to happen in 
sync with an IETF meeting.

Joe

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:45:52 +0000

for the reader...

Simple. Go to the UK, ensure it's winter, and ask a policeman.

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:47:17 -0800

On 02/26/2013 11:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>>> Personally, I'd trust "date -u" much sooner than any random
>>>>> person. Even better:
>>>>> 
>>>>> $ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC' Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST
>>>>> 2013 $
> It could be posted on the Internet Draft submission tool page, including a 
> "countdown clock" too, if you really want useful  ;-)
> 
> It just forces authors to "informally distribute" updates directly on the
> list, and cuts off access to work that doesn't need to happen in sync with
> an IETF meeting.

Something like "documents published less than two weeks before a WG session
cannot be discussed in this session" would be better.  Also, "slides published
less than one week before a WG session cannot be used in this session".

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [email-masked]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:57:17 -0800

On 2/26/2013 11:47 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> Hash: SHA256

That's fine, though it still puts minor mods in the same class as 
complete revisions.

Maybe we need a two-tiered numbering system, e.g., major revs cannot 
occur less than two weeks before a meeting where they will be discussed, 
but minor mods are OK up to 48 hours in advance.

:-)

Joe

---

From: [email-masked] (Martin Rex)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:28:23 +0100 (CET)

joel jaeggli wrote:
> Michael Tuexen wrote:
> > Dale R. Worley wrote:

I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting slots
in local time (local to the IETF Meeting), but does not give the
local time zone *anywhere*.

I would appreciate if the local time zone indication would be added
like somewhere at the top of the page, to each IETF meeting agenda.

-Martin

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:32:13 -0600

>Secretariat tell you that?

well, I can't remember if it was for Paris or Vancouver now that you ask...

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:32:44 -0500

On Feb 26, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Dave Cridland <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably  be left as an exercise for the reader...
> 

Er, I see a  bootstrapping problem here -- don't I need to *roughly* know the time to know if it is winter?

Am I allowed to ask the policeman if it is winter? If a have  a foreign accent is he less likely to think I'm drunk / playing the fool?

W

-- 
Militant Agnostic -- I don't know and you don't either...

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:18:41 -0500

Hi Martin,

> like somewhere at the top of the page, to each IETF meeting agenda.

The good news is the iCalendar data available for the agenda does have the 
correct timezone specified, so if you import the iCalendar data into your 
calendar client (of course assuming you use one) then you will be able to 
view the sessions correctly adjusted to whatever local time you have your 
client set for.

That said, it would still be nice to include the timezone information on 
the agenda page.

It is worth noting that daylight saving time starts on the Sunday morning 
of the IETF meeting, so all the agenda times are in fact UTC -4 hours for 
Sunday and later days, but UTC -5 for Saturday.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:25:28 -0500

Dale,

Funny thing is when I try the date from the announcement:

> All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by UTC 24:00 Monday,
February 25.

I get this:

$ date --date='24:00 Feb 25, 2013 UTC'
date: invalid date `24:00 Feb 25, 2013 UTC'

Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?  Is that like the meeting we'll have in
the afternoon at about 13:90?

Paul

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:31:12 -0900

On 2/26/13 1:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?  

That one is weird, no doubt about it, but ultimately
it's 23:59 + 1 minute, which is clear.  But I really
think "24:00" is confusing. 0:00 is clearer.  I'm
wondering if they're trying to work around some ferkakte
piece of software.

Melinda

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:33:48 -0800

> the afternoon at about 13:90?
The minute which occurs after 23:59 is 00:00 of the following day if you 
have a leap second, you get 23:59:60 which is fun...

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:34:51 -0500

I think the problem is that if they said 0:00, it would be on Tuesday, February 26th, not Monday, February 25th, and people would submit a day late...

Margaret

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:38:32 -0600

On 2/26/13 1:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> occur less than two weeks before a meeting where they will be 
> discussed, but minor mods are OK up to 48 hours in advance.
>
> :-)

You can't bury a recurring-rathole thread like this in the middle of 
another thread and expect good fireworks! ;-)

But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly. Chairs 
should be able to manage what gets discussed at a face-to-face without 
an artificial posting moratorium, and it can be done with reasonable 
discretion for exceptions. But we have had this conversation many times, 
including at the face-to-face plenary, and we've repeatedly heard that 
chairs prefer to have this default "no" in place to reduce the number of 
arguments they have to have with recalcitrant WG members. And there is 
an AD-override of the moratorium, so if you do have good reason to post 
an update, it is allowed.

I suggested at one point that a middle ground might be to keep allow 
submission to a "holding pen" that would require chair or AD to release 
it. It didn't garner a lot of excitement.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:38 -0500

Joes,

> sync with an IETF meeting.

I agree with your point to a large extent, but I'm sure there are reasons.

On the one hand, having a cut-off time could help WG chairs make a decision
as to whether to entertain a discussion on a draft.  On the other hand,
having no cut-off date might mean that drafts are submitted extremely late
and it makes it more challenging or impossible to prepare an agenda.

Perhaps having a "soft" cut-off is more reasonable.  If the document is
"late", then it would be up to the WG chair to decide whether to entertain
it.  If there are no documents by the deadline, the chair could decide to
cancel the meeting.

What one would not want, though, are hundreds of drafts submitted the night
before the IETF meeting starts with some expectation of discussion time.

Paul

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:49:11 -0500

On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:

> But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly. 

+1

The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of those drafts (by hand) before the meeting.  The notion of an automated tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting is just silly.

Margaret

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:50:51 -0900

> and it makes it more challenging or impossible to prepare an agenda.

Well, for one thing the IETF does its work on mailing lists, and
meetings support that rather than the other way 'round.  For another,
I'm not sure this deadline makes any difference in practice (other
than introducing an inconvenience).  We're going to be giving meeting
time to a draft for which there's no revision, because it needs
meeting time.  It's on the agenda whether there's a revision or
not.  I understand the deadline was introduced to provide incentives
for people to get their stuff in in advance of a meeting.  But.

Melinda

---

From: Roberto Peon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:54:24 -0800

I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we
keep all of the versions anyway.
It certainly is annoying the way it is now and is disruptive to the
development process rather than helpful for it.

-=R

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:59:10 -0500

On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Roberto Peon <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we keep all of the versions anyway. 
> It certainly is annoying the way it is now and is disruptive to the development process rather than helpful for it.

Um, maybe.

Another way to look at it is that a deadline, any deadline, helps stop folk procrastinating and actually *submit*.

Have a look at the number of submissions just before the cutoffs…

W

> 
> -=R
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:

-- 
I had no shoes and wept.  Then I met a man who had no feet.  So I said, "Hey man, got any shoes you're not using?"

---

From: Roberto Peon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:02:34 -0800

For that to help, one must also assert that the people who would read the
changes two weeks before the meeting wouldn't read the changes the night
before the meeting, and that they'll remember whatever it is they need to
remember to be a useful active participant.
-=R

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Another way to look at it is that a deadline, any deadline, helps stop
> folk procrastinating and actually *submit*.
>
> I had no shoes and wept.  Then I met a man who had no feet.  So I said,
> "Hey man, got any shoes you're not using?"
>
>
>

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:06:46 +0000

+1

lots of people - including me - are almost entirely event driven (no pun
intended).

Nick

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:16:30 +1100

> Have a look at the number of submissions just before the cutoffs…

I think that's a poor trade-off. As discussed before, the publishing embargo disrupts work that isn't in sync with meetings. This is a tangible and somewhat high price to pay just to serve as a procrastination-buster for those that need it.

I'd be willing to deal with an embargo for draft-ietf-*, but don't see at all why it extends to other drafts.

Regards,

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:41:41 -0500

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:16:30 AM Mark Nottingham wrote:
> I think that's a poor trade-off. As discussed before, the publishing embargo
> disrupts work that isn't in sync with meetings. This is a tangible and
> somewhat high price to pay just to serve as a procrastination-buster for
> those that need it.
> 

Why embargo working group drafts for groups that aren't meeting?  It's a 
pointless roadblock.

Scott K

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Feb 2013 02:10:03 -0000

>I'd be willing to deal with an embargo for draft-ietf-*, but don't see at all why it extends

We have software.  Embargo drafts for WGs that are actually meeting
during the preceding week, leave the others alone.

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:20:33 -0500 (EST)

> From: [email-masked] (Martin Rex)

> like somewhere at the top of the page, to each IETF meeting agenda.

I would be nice to have local time zone information.  But in a pinch,
you can google "Time in Orlando" to get the answer.

As for "date --date='...'", well, ye shall know the workman by his
tools.

Dale

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:35:35 -0800

> The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of those drafts (by hand) before the meeting.  The notion of an automated tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before t…

-1

There are a non-trivial number of people who are intensely busy in the 
weeks leading up to a meeting, with a high degree of overlap with the 
set of people we want to be able to actually read the drafts prior to 
the face to face meeting of the WG. The same argument applies, although 
to a somewhat lesser extent, to being able to post for groups that are 
not meeting.

Is a few weeks where people cannot post what they want, when they want 
to; in order for the larger populace of the IETF to be able to focus on 
the activity in and around the meeting REALLY that much of a burden?

Doug

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:41:50 -0500

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 07:35:35 PM Doug Barton wrote:
> > The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of
> > those drafts (by hand) before the meeting.  The notion of an automated
> > tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting is just
> > silly.
> -1
> 

How does that relate to working groups that aren't meeting?  It was silly I 
had to rush to post a draft on Monday for a WG that's not meeting.

Scott K

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:48:57 -0500

> wondering if they're trying to work around some ferkakte

I don't think so.  ISO (ISO 8601) seems to think that "24:00" refers
to the very end of the day, and "00:00" refers to the very beginning
of the next day.  So there's a conceptual distinction involved.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:54:31 +1100

> of the next day.  So there's a conceptual distinction involved.

And to avoid confusion many places use 23:59:59 as end of trading day.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Roberto Peon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:51:20 -0800

I'm doing a lot of work in regards to, creating working code, benchmarking,
testing, writing specs and prose, writing emails, wash, rinse, repeat, and
yes, the deadline is interfering with the publishing of the work-product of
all of that and likely the progress of the group.

... and what is the benefit of the arbitrary 2-weeks-before deadline?
Arguably so people can read the drafts, yes I understand that, yet if the
active participants don't have time to read it, then it won't get time for
discussion at the meeting. If they did, then it will be discussed, and if
people feel that it wasn't presented early enough, then they say so on the
various venues available, not limited simply to stating so at the
microphone.
-=R

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Doug Barton <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all
>> of those drafts (by hand) before the meeting.  The notion of an automated
>> tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting is just silly.
>>
>
> -1
>
> weeks leading up to a meeting, with a high degree of overlap with the set
> of people we want to be able to actually read the drafts prior to the face
> to face meeting of the WG. The same argument applies, although to a
> somewhat lesser extent, to being able to post for groups that are not
> meeting.
>
> Is a few weeks where people cannot post what they want, when they want to;
> in order for the larger populace of the IETF to be able to focus on the
> activity in and around the meeting REALLY that much of a burden?
>
> Doug
>
>

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:46:27 +0100

Hi,

> [...] ferkakte [...]

As a German, I'm now torn apart between being flattered that we've
successfully exported a German word to the U.S. and being speechlessly
shocked by the way spelling was b0rked in the process.

Stefan

-- 
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et
de la Recherche
6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:52:53 +0700

On 02/27/2013 03:46 PM, Stefan Winter wrote:
 > successfully exported a German word to the U.S. and being
 > speechlessly shocked by the way spelling was b0rked in the process.

I believe that it's actually Yiddish.

---

From: Klaas Wierenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:58:52 +0100

> I believe that it's actually Yiddish.

yup: http://www.yiddishdictionaryonline.com/dictionary/display.php?action=search&type=rom&word=farkakt

still my bet would be that this Yiddish word has Germanic origins…. 

Klaas

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:20:09 +0000

> like somewhere at the top of the page, to each IETF meeting agenda.

So in this interesting discussion of UTC, Martin has actually made an excellent point.  Having UTC listings for the agenda would be very helpful, or an alternative agenda showing UTC.

Tim

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:24:28 +0100

Hi,

> still my bet would be that this Yiddish word has Germanic origins…. 

Here we see one of the *good* things about having an I-D cutoff
deadline. One finally finds time to do /other/ things ;-)

Stefan

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:28:56 +0100

> So in this interesting discussion of UTC, Martin has actually made an excellent point.  Having UTC listings for the agenda would be very helpful, or an alternative agenda showing UTC.

+1. Given our high remote participation, I put UTC in the agenda for the MILE WG anyway (usually correctly, even). And given that the IETF often meets on one side or another of the DST change in local time, having an unchanging time reference would be helpful even for attendees.

Cheers,

Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:53:28 +0000

> +1. Given our high remote participation, I put UTC in the agenda for the MILE WG anyway (usually correctly, even). And given that the IETF often meets on one side or another of the DST change in lo…

UTC time *and* date please, for people in whichever hemisphere happens to be
opposite the IETF.

   Brian

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:19:17 +0000

> Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?

See http://dotat.at/tmp/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf section 4.2.3 "midnight"

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first.
Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good,
occasionally poor at first.

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:31:41 +0000

Do not worry that much and use: 
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?month=3&day=11&year=2013&p1=224&p2=64&p3=43&p4=37&p5=33&iv=0 

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Tony
> Finch
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:19 PM
> To: Paul E. Jones
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
>

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:56:55 +0900

> See http://dotat.at/tmp/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf section 4.2.3 "midnight"

The IS should clarify that a day is [0:0, 24:0), not [0:0, 24:0]
and everything should be fine.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:32:55 +0000

> and everything should be fine.

Its definition of a calendar day is consistent with its definition of a
time interval. It doesn't make any distinction between including and
excluding the end instants. And I don't think it would be sensible to do
so: it would clutter the time interval notation with no clear benefit.

Tony.

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:37:44 -0500

On 2013-02-27 4:53 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>>> So in this interesting discussion of UTC, Martin has actually made an
>>>excellent point.  Having UTC listings for the agenda would be very
>>>helpful, or an alternative agenda showing UTC.
>> 
>> +1. Given our high remote participation, I put UTC in the agenda for
>>the MILE WG anyway (usually correctly, even). And given that the IETF
>>often meets on one side or another of the DST change in local time,
>>having an unchanging time reference would be helpful even for attendees.
>

+1.  UTC (in addition to whatever local time based on venue) is the
clearest way of specifying a time.  It's easily converted into other time
zones by those who need to do so.

Regards,

Victor K

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:00:20 +0100

> local time zone *anywhere*.

Except for the ICS files that are generated by the agenda tool
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/86/agenda.html).  If you take the
URL that is generated after you select the sessions you are interested
in, you can import a series of EVENTs complete with VTIMEZONEs into any
modern calendar program (e.g., Outlook, iCalendar) and the Right Thing®
will happen.

Eliot

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:03:02 -0500

<http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/>

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:44:15 -0500

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:42 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
>
> How does that relate to working groups that aren't meeting?

[WEG] Signal to noise ratio. I (and I assume others) use the IETF's RSS feed to see all new drafts when they are posted. This is in order to have a fighting chance to see drafts I might care about that happen in WGs that I am not an active participant in, both to help me see if there are other WG lists I need to subscribe to or if there are meetings I should attend as a "tourist", or direct feedback to the authors prior to IETF LC.
New drafts posted for WGs that aren't meeting (and while I'm at it, throwaway placeholder -00 drafts with no content) help contribute to the crush of drafts to sift through, because it's not readily apparent based on the RSS summary or the draft itself whether the WG is meeting. Add me as one more +1 in support of a quiet period to give me a chance to catch up on draft review before the meeting.

> It was silly I had to rush to post a draft on Monday for a WG that's not
> meeting.
>

[WEG] Yes it was silly you had to rush, because if the WG isn't meeting, there's no reason why you couldn't have simply waited until after the moratorium elapsed, or posted it well prior to the inevitable rush of work that precedes every meeting.
Though alternatively it should be possible to have the system continue accepting submissions and only make them public at the expiration of the posting moratorium.

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:05:12 -0500

Hi Tim,

> helpful, or an alternative agenda showing UTC.

Do use a calendar (iCalendar) client to manage your own time? If so, the 
iCalendar "feed" of the agenda will provide everything you need in terms of 
viewing the events in whatever timezone you want.

Having an alternative text agenda in UTC still requires mental arithmetic 
to convert to one's own local time - a lot harder for those living in zones 
with a large offset, or an offset with a 1/2 hour component to it. Better 
would be an option on the webpage to allow the text-based agenda to be 
displayed in a chosen timezone.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:13:09 -0600

> Have a look at the number of submissions just before the cutoffs…
[MB] I agree.  The deadline is what pushes the vast majority to get
work done.  WG chairs to have discretion and they can ask the
secretariat to post something after the deadline.  I believe that's
more than sufficient.  As Melinda noted in another email work should
happen on the mailing list.  If the documents aren't out earlier, then
there is no time to discuss on the mailing list.  Without mailing list
discussion or folks even having read drafts, the WG time is not nearly
as effective  in my experience and I honestly think that's one reason
it takes IETF so *many* cycles to get work done.

In the RAI area, we've had a process in place that has earlier
deadlines that REQUIRE wg discussion or the documents do NOT get
agenda time.  That has proven fairly effective  We have made the
deadlines less restrictive over the past year and we seem to have
reached a good steady state in the process. If anyone wants to debate
the merits of that process, please do so on the RAI area list as we
are always looking to improve. The nature of this WG is different, of
course.  For the other WG I chair,  the group has been pretty good
about getting documents updated outside the deadlines.  But, that's
because we have regularly design team meetings that introduce
deadlines for work to get out for mailing list discussion, which gets
back to the basic fact that many procrastinate or get distracted with
other things and unless there's a deadline, the work will not get done
in a timely manner. [/MB]

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:17:59 -0600

You have two choices with the current model:
1) If the document is critical for WG progress, then talk to your WG
chairs and see if they are willing to contact the secretariat to let
the document through.  You do need a very compelling reason to do
this, so it shouldn't be done as a rule.
2) Submit the document the Monday of the meeting week when the
submission process is re-opened.

If one looks at the volume of documents that many need to read before
meetings, if everyone waited until the few days before the meetings to
submit, then our meetings would be even less effective.  How many
could read all the pages of the WG documents that they are interested
in a few days?  I don't recall the number right off, but in the past
someone created a file with all the RAI area drafts - it was a crazy
number and even for a two week period, it was humanly impossible to
read all the drafts unless you speed read (and miss information) and
are reading 24 hrs/day.

Regards,
Mary.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:55:55 -0900

> I believe that it's actually Yiddish.

It is.  It may or may not be German, as well.  Don't know.

Melinda

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:25:38 -0500

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 09:44:15 AM George, Wes wrote:
> [WEG] Signal to noise ratio. I (and I assume others) use the IETF's RSS feed
> to see all new drafts when they are posted. This is in order to have a
> fighting chance to see drafts I might care about that happen in WGs that I
> am not an active participant in, both to help me see if there are other WG
> lists I need to subscribe to or if there are meetings I should attend as a
> "tourist", or direct feedback to the authors prior to IETF LC. New drafts
> posted for WGs that aren't meeting (and while I'm at it, throwaway
> placeholder -00 drafts with no content) help contribute to the crush of
> drafts to sift through, because it's not readily apparent based on the RSS
> summary or the draft itself whether the WG is meeting. Add me as one more
> +1 in support of a quiet period to give me a chance to catch up on draft
> review before the meeting.

If you want a quiet period, stop looking at the feed.  If, as I' and others 
have suggested, submissions are still blocked for WG that are meeting, then 
anything in the feed after the cutoff is unrelated to your meeting 
preparations. 

> [WEG] Yes it was silly you had to rush, because if the WG isn't meeting,
> there's no reason why you couldn't have simply waited until after the
> moratorium elapsed, or posted it well prior to the inevitable rush of work
> that precedes every meeting. Though alternatively it should be possible to
> have the system continue accepting submissions and only make them public at
> the expiration of the posting moratorium.

It was rush in the sense that I'd have preferred to wait another day or two 
for feedback on a few points.  It wasn't a rush job in the sense of rushing to 
prepare a draft.  As it is, we have a good (IME anyway) draft that resolves a 
number of issues and is a solid foundation for moving on to address our 
remaining issues.  Waiting to post it would have only slowed the progress of 
the WG.  There are natural places in the work of a WG to post an updated 
draft.  For WG that aren't meeting, IETF meeting draft cut offs should not 
affect that.  It's not like the list of WG that are meeting aren't known well 
in advance of the cut off.

Scott K

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:04:03 +0100

Hi Melinda,

> wondering if they're trying to work around some ferkakte

No, it's just trying to provide a time indication that people
will easily interpret correctly.  Trying out the correct
notation (using 00:00 and the following date) on people
during informal testing, I found that people were much more
prone to interpret that as the deadline being 24 hours later
than was intended.

I can of course make it 23:59 to be both correct and easily
read, if the powers-that-be will permit a one-second shift in
actual deadline time.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 03:20:11 +0900

> so: it would clutter the time interval notation with no clear benefit.

In Japan, at the beginning of 2004, copyright protection period
of movies, copyright of which were unexpired at that time, was
extended by 20 years.

But, copyright of some movies expired at the end of 2003.

There were disputes in courts and the supreme court judged
that copyright of the movies expired.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:18:07 -0800 (PST)

+1

> The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of those drafts (by hand) before the meeting.  The notion of an automated tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before t…

All the more so since it just leads people to use informal distribution
methods. I don't recall a case where a chair forbid the discussion of a draft
distributed this way.

I recall hearing something once about routing around obstacles... Pity we don't
internalize such principles fully.

				Ned

---

From: Roberto Peon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:49:08 -0800

+1

In any case, the proposal as I understood it was that the deadline *would*
apply to drafts which the secretariat had to examine, just not the rest.
 I certainly don't agree with giving an unsupportable load to our
secretariat before the meetings (and it isn't being proposed by me :) )

-=R

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:49:46 +0100

On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:18, [email-masked] wrote:

> routing around obstacles

It turns out for most people the easiest route around is submitting in time.

That is actually what counts here: how does the rule influence the behavior of people.

Chair hat: WORKSFORME.  (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:57:45 -0500

> Chair hat: WORKSFORME.  (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.)
+1.

As far as I can tell, the deadline actually serves the purpose of 
getting people to focus on IETF and update their documents sufficiently 
prior to the meeting, that it's reasonable to expect meeting 
participants to read the drafts that they intend to discuss.   And I say 
this as someone who, as an author, has often found the deadline to be 
very inconvenient.

Keith

---

From: Dick Franks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:16:05 +0000

> shocked by the way spelling was b0rked in the process.

You got off lightly.
The English exported an entire language which got b0rked in the process!

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:18:48 -0800

> internalize such principles fully.

Well, in an odd way we really do internalize most of the core Internet 
design and architecture rules quite well.

When the topic is IETF process, we seem to have an astonishingly 
consistent preference for choices that go in the opposite direction from 
what we've learned in creating the technology...

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:21:28 -0800 (PST)

> this as someone who, as an author, has often found the deadline to be

And your evidence for this is .. what exactly? Yes, the deadline makes the
drafts show up a bit sooner, but I rather suspect that the overwhelming
majority of people don't bother to do much reading in the inverval. I certainly
don't.

And given the ready available tools to tell the reader what's changed I don't
need to. In almost all cases for -nn where nn > 00 I can check what's changed
in a few minutes, and I can do it in the context of the actual work being done.

I don't really have any objection to a -00 cutoff, but the second cutoff
is nothing short of asinine.

In any case, I personally have basically stopped caring about the deadline and
I encourage others to do the same. If I make the deadline fine, if not I post
the update somewhere else, done.

				Ned

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:05:11 +0000

> prone to interpret that as the deadline being 24 hours later

Strange. Do they think that a train that departs at 00:01
is 23 hours and 59 minutes earlier than one that departs at 00:00?

However, the phrase "midnight on Monday" is certainly unclear.
I suppose it means 00:00 on Tuesday, but maybe not.

But in any case, while teaching, I chose to set assignment deadlines
at 23:59 for exactly this reason - nothing is completely idiot proof,
but this seems to work out OK.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:13:06 +0000

Ned,

> majority of people don't bother to do much reading in the inverval. I

Just to present another view, I certainly do.

I agree that this is more important for -00 drafts, and that looking at
the diffs *may* be sufficient for updated drafts. However, with hundreds
of documents coming down the pipe shortly before the meeting, I firmly
believe that the two deadlines are essential in order to achieve any
kind of systematic triage and decide what needs careful reading.

I think many of us have a wide range of interests that make this
triage important.

  Brian

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:05:08 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>
To: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:49 PM

+1

The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all
of those drafts (by hand) before the meeting.  The notion of an
automated tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting
is just silly.

<tp>

Sometimes, history is bunk:-)

Whatever reason is buried in the mists of time, the sheer volume of I-Ds
that flood the IETF each and every day requires a pause in the process
for someone who wishes to make an informed contribution to an IETF
meeting to step back and consider what preparation they need to do
before attending.

The publication deadline provides that, especially against the authors
who want to do everything at or after the last minute, regardless of the
cost to those who want to use their time more productively by planning
ahead.

Of course, if your only interest is in your own I-D, or that of your
fellow-workers, then you may not grasp the importance of this issue in
the work of the IETF at large:-(

Tom Petch

Margaret

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:02:13 +0100

Hi Brian,

> is 23 hours and 59 minutes earlier than one that departs at 00:00?

Probably not:  I think it's the 00:00 which some people tend to
(unconsciously) translate to 'Midnight', and midnight at a certain
date is, exactly as you point out below, somewhat less clear.

> but this seems to work out OK.

Ack.  I'll try to get acceptance for that.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:47:37 -0500 (EST)

> From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
> 
> > [...] ferkakte [...]
> 

Given that the word is Yiddish, and therefore has been transliterated
from the Hebrew alphabet (in which Yiddish is written) into the Latin
alphabet, you can blame the problem on incorrect
internationalization...

Dale