ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-14 11:45:40
Just to echo in some form what others have said, I believe that an
intermediate stage between I-D and RFC is needed.

I don't have a name for it, but conceptually would be something like
'feature freeze', e.g. no more tweakings to the protocol, or base spec
are to be introduced (unless a major showstopper is discovered), and
just nits and maybe IANA considerations are left to add / discuss.

This would help by sending a clear signal to developers when it's
reasonable to start implementing a given I-D.

A couple of days ago I was part of an email exchange in WEIRDS where
something along this lines happened, when someone proposed an addition
to a base spec that, at least myself, considered already 'frozen'.

The confusion is understandable. Someone entering a WG at a later stage
during the development of an I-D has no way of knowing if the base spec
/ protocol has been agreed and considered stable by the rest of the
participants.

Yes, sure, he/she could comb the ML archives, but I don't think that's
either productive nor even viable in every case, since this 'freezing'
is (in my experience) more like a 'shared feeling' in the ML and not
(usually) explicitly signaled.

IMO, this could also help reducing the length of the overall process and
I would think such a signal would lead to more 'running code' earlier in
the process.

cheers!

~Carlos

On 5/1/13 12:33 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I wrote a blog article about how we do a fairly significant amount of reviews 
and changes in the late stages of the IETF process. Next week the IESG will 
be having a retreat in Dublin, Ireland. As we brought this topic to our 
agenda, Pete and I wanted to raise the issue here and call for feedback & 
ideas for improving the situation with all of you.

http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/05/balancing-the-process/

Jari