Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 5/7/13 9:48 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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.
> 

You are correct, Peter.  MISSREF and AUTH48 are not part of the RFC
Editor timed states, and the RFC Editor timed states have been largely
under 7 weeks for the last year.

If anyone is curious about current stats, which includes average times
in AUTH48 and MISSREF, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/CurrQstats.txt

Heather Flanagan, RSE





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]