On Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 10:46 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 full review should not be necessary. The only review should be of the changes made by the RFC editor. Perhaps the problem was that these were some excessive.
I had the advantage for RFC of only having two authors. I wound up having to say "no we don't want to do that" a bunch of times but it didn't add too much time since my co-author was of the same opinion.
A significant issue was that it had
spent a long time in the Q, and authors had swapped too much context out.
Ouch!
Basically, the best way to make it all work faster would be to just do it
faster :-)
Good luck with that.
Part of the problem is that there is no clear definition of what the RFC editor is to do. I've found them helpful on commas and split infinitives and formatting issues. Was the problem that the RFC editor was trying to do too much?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
