Y'all might find Christian's work in RFC 8963 useful in this regard.
Although only a small and random sample of RFCs, it does show some of the variation in Auth48 and the (possibly anecdotal) causes thereof.
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: 28 February 2022 15:45
To: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@xxxxxxxx>; admin-discuss@xxxxxxxx; IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; RFC Interest <rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Time to say "NO!!" to AUTH4200 (Re: AUTH48 checking the different formats (Re: Public archival of AUTH48 communications))
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
