> I have one new "root cause" issue that I don't believe was included > in the original Problem Statement: > It takes too long to publish an RFC after final approval. I agree with this. Over the last year especially, I'm seeing a significant number of cases where it is taking much more time to get an RFC published than seems justified. One example (and I'm just using it because it was it comes to mind, and one that I think is symptomatic of the broader problem): The DNSSEC bis document set (RFCs 4033-4035). October 15, 2004: IESG approves 4-document set. Within one week: authors send xml source to RFC editor March 10, 2005: IESG requests expedited processing (target date: March 31) March 29, 2005: RFCs published Total time between IESG approval and publication, 5 1/2 months. And to get to Margaret's other points, I agree that these delays damage the IETF. It contributes to the perception that we are too slow, causes additional confusion about a document's true status, etc. Implementors and other SDOs need access to the final RFCs in a timely fashion. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf