Hi Heather, At 09:26 AM 08-07-2019, Heather Flanagan wrote:
Hola a todos, and sorry it took long for me to find this in the thread! I can provide some information, but not hard numbers - editors don't use a stopwatch to determine exactly how long each step takes, as that would both take an unfortunate amount of time and drive us insane for very little benefit.
Thanks for providing some information.
Checking YANG modules became quite challenging in 2018, because it was no longer about ensuring only that the module parsed, but that it was well formatted (per pyang) as well. The formatting part of the process took a substantial amount of effort, as the tools to check the YANG modules were still in development during that time, and we found out much later that the structure of the YANG modules as generated by the tools was not something that had full buy-in from the community. So, the RPC found itself working closely with the tool maintainer and the authors to get well-formatted YANG modules, experimenting with the updated toolset and updating procedures, training staff on the new features of the tool and procedures, and sometimes manually editing the automated output because the author(s) disagreed with parts of the formatting.
The above would probably have an impact on the SLA for documents published. I understand that it may be a step to far to use a stopwatch to do an assessment. However, it would be useful to consider the impact on the other parts of the RFC Editor puzzle.
While the RPC will continue to check the format of YANG modules, we have suggested updating the YANG-related documentation for authors and we have asked the IESG to consider how the authors can be involved earlier in the process, as AUTH48 does not seem to be the correct place to initiate this check (especially if the authors are unaware that this is step is happening).
Was there an Area Director who is responsible for considering the upstream changes?
Regards, S. Moonesamy
