FWIW, I share Joe's concerns. And Stephen's responses don't really change my mind. This document seems to have a bit of missing the forest for the trees. In the overall scheme of things, I don't believe the draft will materially help, and is at best a distraction from dealing with meaningful problems. The crux of the issue is that any attempt at "fast tracking" is fundamentally about short-circuiting some aspect of our review processes. We should only do that very carefully. In almost all cases, individual judgement is needed as to when it is appropriate to do that. ADs/WG chairs already have some flexibility here. e.g., a WG can skip WG LC if they think its not needed. And nothing stops an AD from going to WGLC before doing a careful review. But I'd rather that be done because the case at hand justifies such an optimization, not because there is some "running code" checkmark that allows a special case to be fast tracked.. This document risks substituting process for judgement. I'd rather see more of the latter and less of the former. Some specifics from the doc: > In summary this experiment collapses three stages of the publication > process to run concurrently: working group last call, AD review, and > IETF last call. Additionally, the experiment will only require IMO, it is almost never appropriate to collapse WG LC and IETF LC. In cases where it is appropriate to do so, there presumably isn't a need for a WG LC to start with. And an AD has always been able to start an IETF LC without doing a detailed review. The point, is judgement is needed, and all such cases are best handled on a case-by-case basis. Surely, we don't need a document to justify doing this in those cases where it makes sense... > IETF last call. Additionally, the experiment will only require > issues raised during these three stages to be addressed if they meet > the IESG's Discuss criteria. The former is not formally a > process and later: > 4. Only comments that would be "DISCUSS-worthy" according to the > IESG Discuss Criteria [DCRIT] need be handled during last call. > Other comments can be handled or not, at the authors/editors > discretion. The above can easily become a way to dismiss legitimate review comments. No doubt, when a AD or reviewer suggests "this needs fixing", the proponents will hold up this document and say "you shouldn't do this, per the RFC -- you're violating the spirit of this document, only really really critical stuff needs to get addressed..." No thanks. That is not what the IETF is about. If it is really urgent to get a document done, it is far better to take steps to make sure the editors are engaged and responsive. That is more likely the real issue!!! > It is understood that the savings in time for the end-to-end delivery > of a proposed standard or experimental RFC may be modest, however, > the modifications to normal IETF process will also serve as an > indication of the importance that the IETF places in running code. Running code is valuable. Always has been, always will be. But we need to resist the temptation of making "running code" more equal than other criteria or putting it on a pedestal as some sort of holy grail. Running code by itself is just a sound bite. The importance of running code is what it tells us about a protocol specification. Just the mere fact that there is running code doesn't mean there is anything particularly enlightening to learn from an implementation. For example, "running code" of a router function in software doesn't necessarily say anything as to whether the code can be implemented efficiently using ASICs, which may be the real requirement. > > 5. The responsible AD for the WG concerned makes the decision as to > whether changes are required as a result of review comments, and > determines whether or not those have been completed. If > significant change or extended discussion is required, or if > changes are not complete within two weeks after the end of fast- > track last call, then the draft is returned to the WG by the > responsible AD and the document is withdrawn from the experiment. The two week figure is too stringent. The above is too prescriptive to be practical. For starters, how will the IESG telechat align with the ending of LC? Or what if an IESG member issues a defer (or will those be disallowed?). Section 4 has a bit too much detail and process in it. I'm sure it has both too much and too little actually. I.e., it probably misses some corner cases, and then what do you do given how prescriptive the rest of the section is? But overall, I see this document at best as a no-op. However, I fear that it can be used to short-circuit our review processes in a way that doesn't help the IETF and that won't really speed things up enough to justify the downsides. Thomas