Re: bettering open source involvement

[Dave Taht <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:44 PM, HANSEN, TONY L <[e-mail]> wrote:
> The fastest I’ve ever gotten an RFC out was 5 months from initial -00 draft
> to RFC publication.
>
>
>
> When it happened:
>
>
>
> *) it was an individual contribution for a WG that was already in place
>
> *) it was short, to the point and apropos to the WG
>
> *) people in the WG were interested in it
>
> *) it got reviewed in a single IETF WG meeting cycle, but remained an
> individual contribution to the WG
>
> *) the AD wasn’t swamped with other items
>
> *) there was nothing controversial in it

Naming and service discovery, for example, are perpetually
controversial, and kind of need love and finality in a lot of areas.

This sank without a trace:

https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-taht-kelley-hunt-dhcpv4-to-slaac-naming-00.html

Speaking of APIs, there was an attempt at doing a name based socket
session layer,
about 3 years back, it's on github somewhere.

>
>
> So RFCs CAN be done in a minimum amount of time.
>
>
>
>                 Tony
>
>
>
> From: ietf <[e-mail]> on behalf of Alia Atlas
> <[e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:04 AM
>
>
>
> That certainly aligns with what I've heard as well, but can I poke into a
> bit more.
>
> I know that, for instance, I can get a draft from written to the RFC Editor
> in 6 weeks,
>
> if it isn't controversial.   Most of that time is to allow adequate review
> at the WG, IETF
>
> Last Call, directorates and IESG levels.
>
>
>
> My sense is that the rest of the time goes to the WG process which has
> aspects of:
>
>    a) Getting people interested in the idea
>
>    b) Having folks cycle in and out of paying attention and commenting
>
>    c) Having authors/editors be distracted and unresponsive.
>
>    d) Having WG Chairs be distracted/unresponsive and want more discussion
> first.
>
>    e) Avoiding having actively hard discussions about contentious points.
>
>    f) (sometimes) waiting for implementations to sanity-check
>
>
>
> It feels like a WG group or topic in a fixed area with agreement could get
> past many of these slow-downs - if there were general agreement and a
> culture in that WG of doing so.
>
>
>
> We aren't, after all, doomed to repeat the delays of the past :-)  which
> isn't to say that this would be easy.
>
>
>
> What do you think?  Are there factors that I'm missing?   Is there a
> technical topic where there could be enthusiasm to push?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alia
>
>



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org