Subject: Re: rfc publication suggestions

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:59:24 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Dave Cro
cker writes:

>The current RFC publication process has some astonishing delays apparently 
>due to the process including a conversion of the source text to 
>nroff.  Eliminating that step, or at least automating its equivalent, could 
>only help.

The RFC editor has stated that the conversion step is a minor 
annoyance, and not a significant source of delay.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:16:13 +1100

>annoyance, and not a significant source of delay.

hmmm.  I had heard a second-hand comment to the contrary, but am more than 
willing to concede the failings of such an information channel.

however the editor queue can hold things for a very long time, and not just 
due to waiting for an author to fix something.  (gosh.  we haven't 
discussed THIS topic in a couple of years...)

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

---

From: "Kastenholz, Frank" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:11:24 -0500

dave

have you ever really listened to jkr's presentations about the
status of rfc's? i'm assuming that you have not, because if you
did, you'd know that the big delays are things like
- waiting for waiting for change/disclaimer text
  from the iesg
- waiting for "minor" revisions from the author
- waiting for linked documents to reach appropriate
  maturity levels (so we don't have, eg, an rfc
  citing an internet-draft). 

At 02:16 PM 3/12/01 +1100, Dave Crocker wrote:
>hmmm.  I had heard a second-hand comment to the contrary, but am more than willing to concede the failings of such an information channel.
>
>however the editor queue can hold things for a very long time, and not just due to waiting for an author to fix something.  (gosh.  we haven't discussed THIS topic in a couple of years...)
>
>d/
>
>
>----------

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:17:39 -0800

At 02:16 PM 3/12/2001 +1100, Dave Crocker wrote:
>however the editor queue can hold things for a very long time, and not 
>just due to waiting for an author to fix something.  (gosh.  we haven't 

the most common hold-up that I see is a wait for normative references. That 
held the MPLS documents up for a year.

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:32:30 -0500

Fred> the  most  common  hold-up  that   I  see  is  a  wait  for  normative
Fred> references. That held the MPLS documents up for a year.

This  is  not exactly  true.   In  a number  of  cases,  the documents  were
explicitly crafted to have only non-normative references to internet-drafts,
but when  the documents reached the  RFC Editor's queue,  all the references
were mysteriously declared to be normative.  Questions about this mysterious
reinterpretation just went  unanswered.  My suspicion is that  this has more
to do with the overload on the IESG members than anything else.

Another source  of delay was  the tendency of  IESG comments to  dribble in.
Just as the documents were about to  be sent to the RFC editor, another IESG
member would  have a  comment.  By  and large, the  IESG comments  were very
reasonable, but  for a  long time  it seemed like  the review  process would
never end.   Again, overload on the  IESG members is  likely responsible for
this.