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

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Fri, 08 November 2019 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1648712083C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:40:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hx8ISaZ24syX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:40:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F278012083B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:40:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id t1so7794495wrv.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:40:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=cRmY0pQpSdLiOTHUkSJIzTxiK7osd9hSRrckInDZMbo=; b=GN3jVefX/D4QEfJJ9kUp0h763DUXo1HuKhS5X5tyJ+sSNjvvC4fAr1XKAoXJ9dLCXQ arYvFU/dGAj0EbwoPi1vGBlX2c4PUw/P5+HcJP9K5fqXkvNbIEkemqqovP3XP8N3ocbQ zWOHjULn3e5M1oL2p8VwbTG5b6aSL2GTeu9nJtA/BEr7uuy/johU+9AS9vN+xxFoO+C5 7VuhvW3RuHT8gg53jOjpc9T1/m5/Cu2K0oXrGahxpGD5SGvg4VMR/Lnx54fcWo74akQX pfAf8Z37EryjBuxfkdWZ7Do9+cAY7fJ1mBNQbJROlGAxPVVzsWc+ASCrHS50C9Ws0iGP G6zQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=cRmY0pQpSdLiOTHUkSJIzTxiK7osd9hSRrckInDZMbo=; b=M3FfK9VJ0n3Ixv9MLbrp4Dm6pIXZZu1aKJrFBDKpWiOyPN9M6dgaWMeY9xH9JRssNZ wQVHUmjvVgkDad05pBbkRfJjOpm/kSpe9tqrGsJscWkOkQTGo1W5wHgBTQY5uaRUjgyw W0Tg6unQAA2LAd72LrLAC/k7+GHvXkCNCowsn5GBoFDDZw6FD05Vk5H+FypglvHkWBNr eIg8gHX4FxtLEQkLz7xmdXBn/9ifZu6hNTGiJsgtNhm0XJsQ5sJlOxezNXBaXjBOyTZm Umx64RoX1IMdovmvZS7i4zNPhaZSkVEduYV6hdjCp9n50wH4kbVrwf30jS1hUP3sFOP1 SL+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWokkcBaL67rfzIHn+zjg8Glj9xwWTof/+Y774Zmy39jkrlSBX/ uPnhSnLEBLByE2q5B+bbJzw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzCqZXdGRlmQIR2qwN2KWCDTCaiF/V/4CMnqLNkf46jDMJrDn9G9HZ6kDV7gOc56qSb4AN2jA==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:e602:: with SMTP id p2mr9728937wrm.348.1573231223434; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:40:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:5474:2844:85aa:476? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:5474:2844:85aa:476]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b14sm8704824wmj.18.2019.11.08.08.40.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:40:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <5BB75458-1B2C-46F3-A402-B9C845B054F5@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_41063D75-71C9-4658-8290-0D60279F9E3D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:40:19 -0800
In-Reply-To: <4222b3ba-6623-c103-7007-b60810d1f95a@huitema.net>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
References: <38E47448-63B4-4A5D-8A9D-3AB890EBDDDD@akamai.com> <09886edb-4302-b309-9eaa-f016c4487128@gmail.com> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <2668fa45-7667-51a6-7cb6-4b704c7fba5a@isode.com> <2C97D18E-3DA0-4A2D-8179-6D86EB835783@gmail.com> <91686B28-9583-4A8E-AF8A-E66977B1FE13@gmail.com> <012b9437-4440-915c-f1f9-b85e1b0be768@gmail.com> <20191107014849.GC12148@localhost> <57465486-71b1-a87a-fa8c-bad7157f9025@gmail.com> <3caeb4cf-b92b-99fd-77df-7b1aef3e2979@network-heretics.com> <20191107194408.GF12148@localhost> <4222b3ba-6623-c103-7007-b60810d1f95a@huitema.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WNBpweGOxZC6TohWcfVvX0lGdoQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 16:40:27 -0000

Christian,

> On Nov 7, 2019, at 10:21 PM, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>; wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/7/2019 11:44 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> That's not what the numbers say. I took a hard look at the delays in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huitema-rfc-eval-project-01, and the
> RFC Editor queue time is by no means the largest part of the delay from
> 1st draft to RFC publication. The RFC Edition delay proper is about 2
> months on average, plus about 1 month on average for the Auth48 period.
> The edition delay does not vary much, but the Auth48 delay varies a lot,
> and the main reason for this variability is the responsiveness of the
> authors.
> 
> In the path from 1st draft to RFC, the bulk of the delays happen in the
> working group. In my sample set, the average delay from start to finish
> is 3 years and 3 months, of which on average 2 years and 8 months are
> spent getting consensus in the working group.

That’s matches my experience as well.

Also, one of the significant causes for long delays in the RFC Editor queue is mis refs.  That is, when it has normative references to drafts that are not yet approved.   This can add considerable delay and can’t be speeded up by the RFC Editor.

Bob