On 05/03/2013 01:25 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
However, I did want to point out that when I said "tail-heavy", I did*not* necessarily mean delay. I meant that a lot of activity is going on, many document changes, and much review is going on. Obviously in some cases this translates to delay as well.
In my own document writing experience I agree that there have been a lot of document changes because you have to address the review comments. The question is (and I wouldn't want to answer that without surveying various documents) what difference these changes make in terms of interoperability and easier deployment.
But the delay was really not my main concern. Primarily because I think other issues such as transparency to the working group or late surprises are more fundamental issues than mere timing.
While the DISCUSSes are available in the tracker most working group participants do not pay attention to the tracker itself but they rather follow the mailing list. Unless someone (e.g., draft author or WG chairs) forward the comments to the list they do not get a lot of attention.
For example, I am active in the GEOPRIV working group and I did not realize that the technical solution for conveying location in DHCP was re-written during the IESG review phase. Maybe I missed the notes to the mailing list from the draft authors but I just didn't realize it. It was a surprise to me.
I personally would prefer to have all the discusses also sent to the working group automatically.