Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 08 November 2019 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED8D1200CC for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:31:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w_v5qMjWttOz for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:31:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0178312004A for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:31:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d29so2881678plj.8 for <>; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:31:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VwxmtpkGnx3pRXjBvHEveU8gzvBGfTJENAeDuFQeaL0=; b=sN4cqPomWsWI0r4irFh/lXHD7l7nOehUlnnXV2BtdEqPi1cWVrGZtUb9S+MYUcZRUN kvdMOuw3PBTMm9DrbRztPy2yFtt21VKe/JXQbbh5pV9625w2Oijo8GIjVkOTLyjapdlZ WJi+BbQSzljppVgncfUHWtorHZEJ9GKqr/OyjHFV4anJ5E/juKZ94Sw/oKBOF+RMbDP7 PUm55DvOztnJuRqFu/lW7iwL4O+wcEnZ6QwuY8375yiZ1gZeKdHRM+gmvewekIuSuF1r 2TcTFKFvl9lpZC39Rdj6UuTzce78aAP3XEyyq6ElDEvRIvTclheRFXr5S1Q84/758WiH M2tQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VwxmtpkGnx3pRXjBvHEveU8gzvBGfTJENAeDuFQeaL0=; b=TCaLCgy9ue8FfdOxgm7+BIFX/Ci5CADtCzsWrBBBDC3spL6uIZhWwpSmEQ6L1tV6c8 HHryzBeec24LqI6FBoKO4To+rvtYnSf2+Is8/LAFWa0Sb+HJWDY8smSqF8wh/mru5lme wyrN6/INyTia0Qoi3EdsC4wkpaMncTfpUgcUB0b0o/8giWnmcCGuSVEtm2JlzDLGUB9p 9j6Xm8PsGyn0ZiNLFbzpOmT9yj3hE7Qis0vTPto/z3nS1rNRRP1iuYoKuswC6TTAgVt/ OUc3CvzfTM5fQB5UY5lHqMzIYRQppXdVm3vdx1Rwzk2nmQN9la2kGgHnwpFJUO+VA9km Zcog==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV6OeaTuuIwuj8fzG2tcR21090QckKZf+XuQjN+Yhb9UW3SRQkd oZPASRDmaTf5kVKqAxZXOCQI0NKc
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyymBZL6YDAljfL0jOR3Byuk5AHD5PLIZVDaqmuxilxN32GQpQrsuywkRJP7nZUoI7pTyOfbw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:17ad:: with SMTP id q42mr9829188pja.100.1573176674049; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:31:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id y10sm4341013pfe.148.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:31:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
To: Nico Williams <>, Keith Moore <>
References: <> <> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <> <> <> <> <20191107014849.GC12148@localhost> <> <> <20191107194408.GF12148@localhost>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:31:08 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191107194408.GF12148@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 01:31:16 -0000

One more comment and then an alternative thought experiment:
On 08-Nov-19 08:44, Nico Williams wrote:
>> But my guess is that the only way to get buy-in for Prototype specifications
>> would be to convincingly promise faster development.
> Yes.  That includes faster RFC-Editor turnarounds.  If we remove the
> other bottlenecs, then RFC-Editor queue time will become the next
> bottleneck to address.

In my experience (i.e. I have not run stats) the long delays are mainly
caused by missing normative references, i.e. are a result of IETF rules
and IETF slowness, not a problem caused in any way by the RFC service.
The quickest way to improve the RFC queue statistics would be to abolish
the rule that I-Ds cannot be used as normative references.

Anyway: my new experiment would be one that the IESG could decide to
start tomorrow. It's simply that the IESG would only ever issue one form
of DISCUSS ballot, which would look like this:

Pat Areadirector has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-somewg-somedraft-99: Discuss

There are still open issues from the following reviews:
<links to reviews>

In other words, the IESG simply busy-waits until all review issues
have been resolved, rather than finding and fixing the issues

(If an AD wishes to post a review for a given draft, that would be
a personal choice, not part of the IESG workload.)

This is a procedural change, and would not prevent a substantive
DISCUSS in unusual circumstances.