In message http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg55986.html, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > I would like to provide one recent example. In the EMU working group we > worked on a protocol, called EAP-GPSK http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5433.txt. > The work was done in a design team, it took a very long time (the first > design team draft dates back to May 2006). Hannes, you are saying "very long time" -- but according to my limited experience, the IETF timeline you mention in fact seems to be unusually _fast_ ! I have recently seen new, rather short RFCs that took more than 5 years from first WG discussion to RFC. Sadly, that apparently are _not_ extreme outliers. (And according to filed records, they have not been subject to substantial normative MISSREF stalls.) I do not want to blame anybody, but in the TSV area I am aware of documents in at least two different WGs that describe common (and recommended) _existing_ implementation practice and have not even been submitted to the IESG after more than 4 years of consideration. Reportedly, other WGs in other areas show similar 'performance' occasionally (or worse). Sigh! Contrary to that, I am aware of a "young" WG 'ab initio' committed to a policy rule that "adopted work items should be forwarded to the IESG within roughly one year -- or abandoned". Very laudable! Kind regards, Alfred. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah@xxxxxxxxx | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf