On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:44 PM, HANSEN, TONY L <tony@xxxxxxx> wrote: > The fastest I’ve ever gotten an RFC out was 5 months from initial -00 draft > to RFC publication. > > > > When it happened: > > > > *) it was an individual contribution for a WG that was already in place > > *) it was short, to the point and apropos to the WG > > *) people in the WG were interested in it > > *) it got reviewed in a single IETF WG meeting cycle, but remained an > individual contribution to the WG > > *) the AD wasn’t swamped with other items > > *) there was nothing controversial in it Naming and service discovery, for example, are perpetually controversial, and kind of need love and finality in a lot of areas. This sank without a trace: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-taht-kelley-hunt-dhcpv4-to-slaac-naming-00.html Speaking of APIs, there was an attempt at doing a name based socket session layer, about 3 years back, it's on github somewhere. > > > So RFCs CAN be done in a minimum amount of time. > > > > Tony > > > > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Alia Atlas > <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:04 AM > > > > That certainly aligns with what I've heard as well, but can I poke into a > bit more. > > I know that, for instance, I can get a draft from written to the RFC Editor > in 6 weeks, > > if it isn't controversial. Most of that time is to allow adequate review > at the WG, IETF > > Last Call, directorates and IESG levels. > > > > My sense is that the rest of the time goes to the WG process which has > aspects of: > > a) Getting people interested in the idea > > b) Having folks cycle in and out of paying attention and commenting > > c) Having authors/editors be distracted and unresponsive. > > d) Having WG Chairs be distracted/unresponsive and want more discussion > first. > > e) Avoiding having actively hard discussions about contentious points. > > f) (sometimes) waiting for implementations to sanity-check > > > > It feels like a WG group or topic in a fixed area with agreement could get > past many of these slow-downs - if there were general agreement and a > culture in that WG of doing so. > > > > We aren't, after all, doomed to repeat the delays of the past :-) which > isn't to say that this would be easy. > > > > What do you think? Are there factors that I'm missing? Is there a > technical topic where there could be enthusiasm to push? > > > > Regards, > > Alia > > -- Dave Täht Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! http://blog.cerowrt.org