Time to publication of an RFC can be reduced by cutting out the pauses,
which could achieved by highlighting when they occur.
This can be done by a tool which, for every active Working Group, runs
monthly and, for every draft adopted by the Working Group, records
whether or not there has been a change and posts this list as an e-mail
to the list of the Working Group. Where a new version has been
submitted to Tools, then this new version is listed with the date of
submission. Where the status has changed, as recorded in the tracker
(AD Review, IETF LC, Publication Approved etc), then the new status is
listed with the date of change. Where nothing has changed, then this is
listed with the date of the last change. Given the number of I-Ds that
some Working Groups are working on, the best sequence is alphabetic of
I-D name.
Such a list would shine a light on what is moving and what is not. This
in turn would encourage, motivate, spur those on whom the draft is
waiting to progress it (and anyone else who could contribute).
This works. I know it does, because something of this ilk happens on a
WG I subscribe to; I imagine the chair does it manually, or perhaps they
screen scrape, but I see it happening.
My first thought was that this would be at the option of the AD or WG
Chairs but on second thought, I think this a mistake. Often the light
will shine on the AD or Chair but that it healthy - it is not a
criticism of them, rather an invitation for everyone to see what they
could do to move things on.
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "t.p." <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com>
To: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>; "Thomas Narten"
<narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way
toRFCwith Running Code) to Experimental RFC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
To: <mrex(_at_)sap(_dot_)com>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>; "Thomas Narten"
<narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:47 PM
Hi Martin,
On 01/25/2013 09:36 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
I don't know about the last time it happened, but I know about
one time in Nov-2009 in the TLS WG (now rfc5746).
I recall that and agree with the sequence of events you
describe, but I'm not sure that that situation is
relevant when considering this draft, for two reasons:
Sounds a bit like 'don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made
up:-)'
The point that Thomas made and John endorsed is that when we want to
speed things up, our current procedures allow us to do just that. We
do
not need a formal process (more complications, more work). And as
John
pointed out, having two independent Last Call discussions, on two
different lists, on communities that may have little overlap, is not
the
way, IMO, to establish a clear consensus.
Tom Petch