On 2/20/08, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > How much more of this will it take before you conclude that we > have a problem? John, Forgive me for saying so, but this sounds like a very extreme response to me. (Unless the expected answer is "A lot") During a transition like this, there are hundreds of things to manage. Several of the I-D submission problems were due to the code supplied by NSS being less portable than most applications; one problem that I'm aware of was due to a bug in idnits, which would have been triggered by either the old installation or the new one. When writing a tool to accept meeting registrations, let's say you are a random web app developer and you want to give the user an opportunity to pick their country from a drop-down list. What set of choices are you going to give them? Over the last several years, I've been fairly closely involved in the IETF's IT infrastructure; I've been quite impressed with how well the transition is going. Problems are being acknowledged and fixed quickly. The AMS staff is very knowledgeable, but the system they were given was basically undocumented and requires a fair amount of TLC to keep running day-to-day. One input to setting expectations for how this transition turns out should be the quality of the input. At this point, instead of worrying about the fact that there have been hiccoughs during the transition, I'd congratulate AMS for a job well done. The web site, in my experience, is significantly more responsive when browsing the mailing list archives. While there have been hiccoughs in the tools, they worked (and continue to work) to resolve them. Bill _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf