Let’s put some numbers on this (units of days) 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 I am inclined to suggest that up to 16 is excellent, 32 is perfectly fine and 64 is just about OK. Would others agree? What alternative metrics would you propose. - Stewart > On 19 Jun 2023, at 16:52, tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 19/06/2023 16:13, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: >> 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. > > Very much so. I was assuming that the authors responded promptly, within 24 hours plus timezones. I was also assuming that the Shepherd had done their job, that the I-D has passed all the checks that the tools perform and that the AD review was considered finished when I see the announcement on Last Call list. > > Tom Petch > > >> >> 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> >> >> >>
