On 30/07/2016 13:21, Dave Taht wrote: > 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. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ubillos-name-based-sockets Unfortunately it never made it past a prototype, but to quote myself, it has deployability issues: "Name Based Sockets (NBS) [44]. In NBS, applications open sockets by name and the transport session, initially opened by address, swaps DNS names between the two ends, so that a broken session can be automatically reopened by name. It relies on IPv6 extension headers or IPv4 options, which many firewalls discard. NBS requires retooling of the DNS, not just of the hosts using it, but should be transpar- ent to routers and middleboxes. At this time it remains a prototype." [http://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/papers/2014/April/0000000-0000008.pdf] NDN is more radical: https://named-data.net/project/ Brian > >> >> >> 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 >> >> > > >