Subject: Re: internet draft backlog

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 10:18:35 -0500

On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Fred Baker wrote:
	 
	 > At 6:54 AM -0800 12/8/97, David W. Morris wrote:
	 > >We could implement a straight forward draft sumbmission process usi
	ng
	 > >a WWW form. Use the form and associated processing to do the scutt 
	work
	 > >of draft handling. To insure some semblence of order, use the web
	 > >process to stage new/revised drafts for a final quick human check.
	 > >Acceptable drafts (by what ever rules already exist) would require 
	a
	 > >single button click to store.
	 > 
	 > We run some set of checks on a draft before posting it - I could ima
	gine
	 > this happening on level 01 through -99 drafts, but not level 00 draf
	ts.
	 
	 What ever checks are performed now would be easier and faster with
	 standardized input format and the data organized for those checks. I 
	 could speculate as well that those checks might be automated to some
	 degree as well, even to just tell the draft editor that certain
	 processing had been performed and exceptions noted as follows...

Personally, I'd like to ensure that someone didn't submit a "draft"
that consisted of "LIVE!!  SEXY!! http://www.hotgerbils.com" or some such,
even if formatted to look like an RFC and named draft-ietf-rodents-00.txt
or some such...

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:49:11 -0800 (PST)

> even if formatted to look like an RFC and named draft-ietf-rodents-00.txt

If you read what I said, you would note that I didn't eliminate a human
review ... I optimized it. Addressing your concern doesn't require
human manipulation of the raw draft which arrives in a variety of
packages, etc. It does require that some form of authentication exist
to make sure that the content is acceptable. I wouldn't want a system
which performed automated updates and overlayed existing drafts
either.

If the IESG, IETF, the secretariat, etc. agree that the process is in need
of significant improvement, these are important details which can be
worked out in the design and design review process.

The first step is to agree that there is a problem and agree to a process
for solving it, possibly budgeting resources to cover the direct costs or
finding a sponsoring organization.

Dave Morris

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:34:33 -0800

As I recall, a standard IETF process for solving this kind of problem
is to form a WG to sort out the issues and develop a solution.  So,
How about thrying our traditional methods o9n this problem too;-)...

>From "David W. Morris's  message Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:49:11 -0800 (PST):
}
  [snip]...[snip]...[snip]...[snip]...[snip]...[snip]...[snip]...[snip]
}
}The first step is to agree that there is a problem and agree to a process
}for solving it, possibly budgeting resources to cover the direct costs or
}finding a sponsoring organization.
}
}Dave Morris
}

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:52:42 -0800 (PST)

Thanks for your message.

I am currently not in the office.
I might not have time or the possibility to send you an immediate response.

I'll certainly deal with your mail on my return. Unfortunate, my return
date is not known yet.

Please contact Bob Fink ([email-masked]) in case immediate action for the
6BONE database is needed. In the mean time, several mirror sites are
available at:

http://www.isi.edu/~davidk/6bone/mirrors.html

and help information (check the 'Hints and tips' section) is available from:

http://www.6bone.net/RIPE-registry.html

Kind regards,

David K.
---

---

From: Former 3Com Employee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:52:27 -0800 (PST)

Thanks for your email.  The user you tried to reach is no longer 
employed at 3Com Corporation and no forwarding information is available.

Your message (shown below) was NOT delivered.  

Thank you,
 3Com Postmaster

 ----------- Your original message is below ----------

>From [email-masked]  Wed Dec 17 12:52:26 1997
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: internet draft backlog 
Reply-to: [email-masked]
From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:34:33 -0800
Sender: [email-masked]

}
  [snip]...[snip]...[snip]...[snip]...[snip]...[snip]...[snip]...[snip]
}
}The first step is to agree that there is a problem and agree to a process
}for solving it, possibly budgeting resources to cover the direct costs or
}finding a sponsoring orga

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 13:44:55 -0800 (PST)

> }finding a sponsoring organization.

Well as far as I can tell, operation of the Secretariat is often 
adjusted in a more expeditious manner than formation of a working
group. I had hoped the timeline might demand a solution before the
next IETF meeting.

Not much chance of forming a WG, getting an approved result and
then implementing it in such a short interval. I hardly thing that
heavy deliberation is required either. We accept additional weeks
of processing space as deadlines are moved and increases in meeting
fees w/o WG formation, etc.

I think the IESG/IAB can move on this and improve the situation.
We don't need perfection, only improvement...

Dave Morris

---

From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:41:51 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

David,

On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, David W. Morris wrote:

>>If the IESG, IETF, the secretariat, etc. agree that the process is in
>>need of significant improvement, these are important details which can
>>be worked out in the design and design review process.

This was discussed during the plenary session on Thursday (and I have been
discussing this with the IESG this week). As was stated during the
plenary, the backlog was due to the volume of submissions, not any
processing. We plan to bring in temporary help to assist for the LA IETF
Meeting. 

Steve