Re: [rfc-i] Time to say "NO!!" to AUTH4200 (Re: AUTH48 checking the different formats (Re: Public archival of AUTH48 communications))

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Perhaps the story of AUTH4200 could be more clearly communicated so that we
can understand if it's an anomaly.

My experience, for instance, with RFC8415 was that AUTH48 stretched into 2-3 months, because
the length of the document meant that a few authors just couldn't find the
time to do the full review required.  A significant issue was that it had
spent a long time in the Q, and authors had swapped too much context out.

Basically, the best way to make it all work faster would be to just do it
faster  :-)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide




Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux