On 5/2/13 4:58 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 5/2/2013 3:25 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: >> 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. But also >> because I actually*do* have some statistics that seem to indicate >> that, overall, the last phase still goes through pretty quickly. Look >> athttp://www.arkko.com/tools/lifecycle/wgdocs.html and compare the >> WG, IESG, and RFC editor times in the first graph. The WG time >> dominates. (I said "seem to indicate" because the results are pretty >> dated and I'm not really sure how valid they are, but they match at >> least my intuitive experience.) Not saying delay reduction wouldn't be >> useful, the overall times are still very long, and the IETF last call >> - IESG time is still a significant component. Just that delay would >> not be my primary > > > Jari, > > Very interesting set of graphs. Thanks! > > > Doing very rough eyeballing of the "left side" averages against the > "right side" averages -- that is, considering how things have changed > over the last 10 years -- it looks like: > > Working groups were taking around 500 days and now take around 600. > > The IESG was taking around 200 days and now takes around 110. > > The RFC then and now takes around 100 days (with lots of variation > between the then and the now, of course.) I'm curious what exactly falls under the RFC Editor phase. My impression from recent plenaries is that the purely RFC Editor responsibilities (not including states like MISSREF and AUTH48) has been running around 6-7 weeks. That's a far cry from 100 days. Peter