In the area where delay is unexpectedly more, there we should increase no of AD's. AD's should give quality time in reviews.
With Best Regards
Samir Srivastava
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 2:07 PM
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: AD review delays
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 2:07 PM
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: AD review delays
The maximum unexpected delay MUST be 90 days ( or the period between IETF f2f meetings after that request) before the next IETF meeting from the request.
AB
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 6:55 PM Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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>
>>
>>
>>
