On 10/28/2010 10:43 AM, Bob Braden wrote:
On 10/28/2010 10:29 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
1. Getting /any/ RFC through the IETF process is very high overhead,
including Experimental.
...
Excuse me, but just what do you mean by "very high overhead"?
Quite a lot of work, with unpredictable and unbounded delay, for some of the steps.
Metrics? Examples? Comparisons with experience with other SDOs?
Comparing with other SDOs is irrelevant to this thread.
As a metric, once a working group has decided to issue a new Internet Draft, it
takes almost no time to issue it. Assuming no format hiccups, it's minutes.
In the IETF, to get that same document issued as Experimental requires the full
IETF approval process with reviews, Last Call, AD support, IESG discussion
cycles, IESG approval (with the variability of resolving Discusses), and RFC
editing and approval.
At its very best, this is perhaps a couple of months, with extremely aggressive
management support. But it never is at its best. More typical is 3-6 months.
The only implied criticism in my list is the variability of IESG approval. All
of the other components are expensive by design but usually proceed well.
Besides the delay in time, I'd guess that the aggregate cost in people's working
time is some number of person-weeks. I would not be surprised if it proved more
meaningful to cast it in terms of person-months.
In other words, as I said, high overhead.
A key point, here, is that the IETF really does not treat Experimental
differently from Standards Track. The presumption is that AD evaluation
criteria are looser, but the default assumption should be that they are not,
since the IESG has never been that structured or consistent in what prompts a
Discuss.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf