Stephen has provided a good summary. And the last paragraph of his reply is the recommended action. I usually try to do my AD reviews by copying the WG in all my email exchanges with the authors. But I guess other ADs may not put the WG in copy, i.e., what appears on the surface as 'no move' could actually be moving ;-) And to state the obvious, if a revised I-D is required (or under discussion) and if the revised I-D takes a long time to be submitted, then the I-D will stay longer in the 'AD review' state. I hope this shed some lights on the process. -éric On 19/06/2023, 17:00, "ietf on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: On 19/06/2023 12:16, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > I am wondering what the consensus of the members of the IETF is on a > reasonable time for an AD to take to move a document from publication > requested to the next stage in the publication process? I think the answer is "it depends." When I was on the IESG it probably mostly depended on the length/complexity of a document and what else was going on at the time, so not sure it's possible to calculate to an expected duration for AD review. I guess historical data might produce a bell curve but not sure that data's easily assembled without a lot of datatracker foo. (In case people don't know, a lot of the current details for this are fairly transparent. [1]) I'd hope that someone unhappy with an AD's progress doing AD evaluation would let the rest of the IESG know about that as they're best placed to either pressure a slow AD or to offer help to an overloaded AD. Cheers, S. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ad <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ad>
