I think it would be useful to analyze the nature of current DISCUSS
comments before drawing conclusions from the 70% figure. They
apparently range from simple typos ("expand acronyms") to
differences of opinion ("WG chose X, AD prefers Y; both X and Y are
at least plausible") to adding various disclaimers to fundamental
design problems ("broken").
I agree completely with Henning. If I understood Allison in the
plenary last night, she was saying that most DISCUSSes don't really
result in much change (Allison, if I misunderstood, please correct
me).
My point is that each of these DISCUSSes kept a specification from
being approved for at least one two-week telechat cycle. I believe, in
the absence of data, that adding delays to a project makes it easier
to stretch out other delays, so "two weeks" is the minimum amount of
time one would wait before a specification would be reballoted, but if
a document editor is on vacation for a week and doesn't provide
updated text immediately, the actual delay can be longer.
I would like to get out of this situation.
Given that the AUTH48 delay is averaging something like a month (did I
get this data point right from the plenary last night?), I'm hoping
that getting crisper and more predictable in the approval cycle will
also encourage working groups to get crisper and more predictable in
their part of the process.
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf