> The majority of documents are close to being acceptable - maybe 10% are > not close. there is a small question about the criteria that you might be using. the current ietf's track is quite poor, both with respect to timeliness and quality. quite simply we are taking a long time to turn out lots of specifications that tend not to get used very much. so it is unclear that the considerable costs of the current 'quality' mechanisms are working very well. you might say that that means we need to get the 10% to a smaller number, but my point is that the 90% is being approved without much benefit to the community (or, apparently, much harm) so it's not clear that all that effort to enforce quality criteria imposed by individual area directors is all that useful... except for frustrating the heck out of all those hard-working working group participants who took so long to create the now-delayed specification... d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf