On 9/25/14 9:35 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > My understanding, possibly incorrect, is that the process delay is > intentional. A brief look at the RFC series and the internet drafts > will tell you that we often start a project with a solution looking > for a problem. That seems to mirror the situation in which we seem to be seeing an increasing number of drafts describing a problem for which there's not really any demand for a solution, but it seems like an interesting problem (plus the question of whatever incentives may or may not be provided by an employer to have stuff working its way through the IETF process, regardless of actual need). At any rate I do think we're seeing a lot of low-quality problem statement drafts. The number of problem statement drafts is clearly increasing and it may be the case that any time the number of <whatever> goes up, the percentage of low-quality <whatevers> increases, but still. My core concern that we're creating this process that requires going through a problem statement/use cases/requirements/gap analysis/etc. ritual and that actual protocol work doesn't happen for several years after the work is chartered (then isn't published for several more years). Melinda