On 19/06/2023 17:47, Daniel Migault wrote:
I tend to think it is not so much the number of days or months as long as
there is a common understanding of that delay. If one estimates X, the
other part estimates Y as long as X differs from Y it is likely to generate
frustration - chances for X to match Y are likely slim. On the other hand
being simply informed it is going to take Z, even Z being greater than X,
this is likely to be fine.
While the context of this thread is the delay from AD, this can be easily
generalized in my opinion to most of the IETF process.
Generalising to everything a customer expects, a dictum of marketing is
that a customer is dissatisfied when reality does not match their
expectations so change their expectations. I do not know what drove the
start of the thread but dissatisfied customers could be one such in
which case the aim of the thread could be to reset expectations.
My expectations are based on several decades of involvement in the
process with its ups and downs. The problem used to be the length of
time from IESG approval to the publication of the RFC and that has been
fixed - I do not know how but it has AFAICT. Perhaps that has now put a
spotlight on another part of the process.
For me, though, it is the delays in the WG post adoption of an I-D that
are the greatest disappointment, and that could be a reflection on the
time an AD has to affect that.
Tom Petch
Yours,
Daniel
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 12:01 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz=
40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do not know where you get the month from. I was thinking of teh
freeze on I-D submission as being the start of the run up and perhaps a
fortnight after to get over jet lag, complete the commitments made
during the meeting, catch up on the day job and so on.
My misreading of your comment. Thanks for the explanation.
