Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Tue, 24 June 2008 02:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C967A3A684D; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96293A6859 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PpY3Kn7xoCOV for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s26.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s26.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.101]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28113A684D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU137-W49 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s26.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:41:27 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU137-W4906E79A3BA47548403D8493A10@phx.gbl>
X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.75]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:41:27 -0700
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2008 02:41:27.0068 (UTC) FILETIME=[CCB245C0:01C8D5A3]
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1480597773=="
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Russ Housley said:
 
"I agree with this principle. In fact, I think that the IESG has taken many steps over the last four or more years to reduce the nearly-end-of-process surprises. Obviously, you do not think these measures have been sufficient. One lesson from the many attempts to make updates to RFC 2026 is that such policy documents needs to set expectations without taking away flexibility and judgement. "
 
Can you elaborate on what steps the IESG has taken to reduce the "nearly-end-of-process surprises" and why effect this has had, if any?  For example, have the delays resulting from IESG reviews actually *decreased* as a result?
 
The research by Prof. Simcoe of the Rotman School is not encouraging:
http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/strategy/research/working%20papers/Simcoe%20-%20Delays.pdf
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf