> Increasingly, the most important standards RFCs may be the > (ill-advised) ones we DON'T publish. from my experience on IESG, there are far too few of these. there's nothing wrong with looking at aggregate data about working groups' production of RFCs. of course, one should be careful about conclusions. for instance, a WG that produces many RFCs isn't necessarily better than one that produces few RFCs, two WGs that produce the same # of RFCs in the same time interval aren't necessarily producing the same quality or utility for their output, and a WG that shuts down after one year isn't necessarily any less productive than a WG that produces a document after one year. * OTOH, if we have several WGs that go on for several years without producing any documents, that's probably a bad sign. overall, I don't find anything wrong with the draft (from a quick reading) other than the title - implying that the tables within are somehow indicative of IETF or WG "Performance" in any meaningful sense. Keith * though I wish that WGs that shut down without producing a protocol document would at least write up a brief RFC that explains what it tried to do and why it shut down - was the problem "too hard" or infeasible, was the subject too politically contentious (and what were the divisive positions), were there found to be adequate solutions already developed, did people lose interest, or what? but sometimes even this much reporting is too difficult.