Re: Review panel's role

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I think it would be useful to analyze the nature of current DISCUSS comments before drawing conclusions from the 70% figure. They apparently range from simple typos ("expand acronyms") to differences of opinion ("WG chose X, AD prefers Y; both X and Y are at least plausible") to adding various disclaimers to fundamental design problems ("broken").

I agree completely with Henning. If I understood Allison in the plenary last night, she was saying that most DISCUSSes don't really result in much change (Allison, if I misunderstood, please correct me).

My point is that each of these DISCUSSes kept a specification from being approved for at least one two-week telechat cycle. I believe, in the absence of data, that adding delays to a project makes it easier to stretch out other delays, so "two weeks" is the minimum amount of time one would wait before a specification would be reballoted, but if a document editor is on vacation for a week and doesn't provide updated text immediately, the actual delay can be longer.

I would like to get out of this situation.

Given that the AUTH48 delay is averaging something like a month (did I get this data point right from the plenary last night?), I'm hoping that getting crisper and more predictable in the approval cycle will also encourage working groups to get crisper and more predictable in their part of the process.

Spencer


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]