Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...

SM <> Sat, 01 December 2012 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0260321E80AD for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:08:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.667
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HDkUAVjbq9hz for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC1E21E80AC for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qB1L7UCg003189; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:07:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1354396054; bh=5vZ5cD5WvfW4WzmnnDcCU9qJuN/7/FM+isM7lf8oRiw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=hZYovR0Mu9Bf05k4tfoYBeosJEHaVjxKLSSSL5v6OB8C6cZC2/0XHu7AeH3XmXxwQ h6ufUPSEyxrwE5Jb+5I5FGckGUXBq8KydCa5Fu9Sv52Sh4De0qL3ojRW1Zty7yPU+9 C01/UMzktmPx+YeeM8tSoUAAIpIjRF0N6SfjxRXA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1354396054;; bh=5vZ5cD5WvfW4WzmnnDcCU9qJuN/7/FM+isM7lf8oRiw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=NKzEbRAs3f1//e9stDlvJqLbquAqcjWdVc3LS4jLodgjV6lHrMeKqJIWwARJ1qS5L ADO2579IzSyGYfIrQmVG1tqi2vNrgbt1uDplstIvJI9viMDcY+68o28XgNP0W9B/LY gmsvuzbVwqtTzwc0LjbsHu92MJmrOGJh4sVyLo54=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 13:06:58 -0800
To: Stephen Farrell <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:08:54 -0000

Hi Stephen,
At 12:12 01-12-2012, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
>If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
>an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then
>that's fine, it can die.

In Section 1:

   "The idea here is not to save the universe, nor to boil
    any oceans."

It's better to boil an ocean than to kill a fish.  :-)

   "1.  Working group last call (WGLC), IETF last call (IETF-LC) and Area
        Director (AD) review all run in parallel over the same two-week

You could skip the WGLC as you have the Last Call.

In Section 3:

   "2.  Where there are two or more WG chairs, all need to agree to fast-
        track processing."

That can be rolled into item 1.

Could you ask an AD to sponsor this draft and generate the Last Call?


P.S. Make the draft experimental.  Add a one-year timer.