On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:27 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote: > On 05/03/2013 01:59 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > > > > If you look at the delays documents encounter (both in WG and in IESG > > review), the killer is long times between document revisions. Focus on > > understanding the *why* behind that and what steps could be taken to > > make improvements. > > Good point. I guess the obvious answers are "not enough > cycles" and not enough "concentrated cycles" - designing and documenting a protocol in my experience requires a longish period of undisturbed concentration by the person with the editing crayon, and responsive, deep and immediate review by co-authors to generate fast turn round reviews of versions. Its hard enough keeping the in-brain implementation of the protocol running accurately day-by-day. If there are gaps of weeks rebooting the implementation wastes precious concentrated time. Probably putting a few people with no other commitments in a isolated space generates fastest results. Maybe we could get ISOC to provide a retreat space (or one per continent) for protocol designers? > and, for newer authors, uncertainty about how to > get stuff done, but are there other less obvious answers? > (Input here might really help the IESG discussion btw since > in the nature of things, we're less likely to realise what > newer or less frequent participants find problematic.) One thing that might help: We have directorates and review panels. Can we distil any/more of their wisdom into checklists/guidance for protocol writers? Some is already there (not a complete list): BCP 72 for security considerations BCP 41 on congestion control BCP 61 on Strong Security Requirements Some stuff in RFC 6385 for gen-art [Some of this is getting a bit long in the tooth.] So what do you ... - think about when designing the security aspects/transport congestion aspects/... of a new protocol? - what triggers alarm bells/gold stars when you are reviewing the general principles/security aspects/congestion/ABNF/state machines/mib/xml/extensibility/.... of a draft? Regards, Elwyn > > S.