In message
http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg55986.html,
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
I would like to provide one recent example. In the EMU working group we
worked on a protocol, called EAP-GPSK http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5433.txt.
The work was done in a design team, it took a very long time (the first
design team draft dates back to May 2006).
Hannes,
you are saying "very long time" -- but according to
my limited experience, the IETF timeline you mention
in fact seems to be unusually _fast_ !
I have recently seen new, rather short RFCs that took
more than 5 years from first WG discussion to RFC.
Sadly, that apparently are _not_ extreme outliers.
(And according to filed records, they have not been subject to
substantial normative MISSREF stalls.)
I do not want to blame anybody, but in the TSV area I am aware
of documents in at least two different WGs that describe common
(and recommended) _existing_ implementation practice and have
not even been submitted to the IESG after more than 4 years of
consideration.
Reportedly, other WGs in other areas show similar 'performance'
occasionally (or worse). Sigh!
Contrary to that, I am aware of a "young" WG 'ab initio' committed
to a policy rule that "adopted work items should be forwarded to
the IESG within roughly one year -- or abandoned". Very laudable!
Kind regards,
Alfred.
--
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 |
| D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah(_at_)TR-Sys(_dot_)de
|
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf