Re: [Idr] Update on advancement of rfc5575bis draft, implementations

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

John,

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 09:24:20PM +0000, John Scudder wrote:
> I’ll add with my co-chair hat off and individual contributor hat on, to my way of thinking I would always choose FCFS over IETF Review, because it provides all the same benefits with less overhead. I guess you can argue that an “IETF Review” code point does benefit from the eponymous IETF Review, but practically speaking since we are at the point where WGLC has been completed and we’re virtually ready to advance the document, the review applied in either case will be exactly the same. So, if implementors are ready to go, they can have a code point before the end of the week with FCFS, whereas it will be longer than that if we do IETF Review/Early Allocation.

While I'm generally sympathetic to your point about FCFS being the faster of
the two, we're so close to being out the door on the RFC that IETF Review
with early allocation would be fine.  We might as well use it, or otherwise
just get reclassify it as FCFS as well. :-)

-- Jeff