Re: Workload constants [was I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt]

Colin Perkins <> Fri, 22 October 2021 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3A53A08BE for <>; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yDXg7LY1I7wU for <>; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 251A03A08BD for <>; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:Subject:From; bh=L9Bck2Pdlis3KLGfl/uz0ZxHU94IVxnm5OT/SE7e2d8=; b=cf1GF+jA7U8DYwfYSjsvU2pabH iArK4aK4lrtSCMrdJm+PK5cwyYMxB9soJ4VNUT1uVmXKMggBgge99v9ahGHHocTY/Gn7nOLagPRpR G0kjDDGBfZQ3ZTbeY/7ILtCP2i20e7yUOjytncl6eKelavpoxS9ZkhYQjI0NhNZZKanLYFY4X8F/X XEAgPpNY/oXBtuVGL88yuRsSa/nf4ghJR1GORVrJUFS2fTov3gTWXaOIupc81QGmULb3iV9GB52PG H0lwh0mjDjsTPQwoNl6ynMuJoO2DcvHqr/PpeCKw+ylCjJYl66r3Ry0PRcc9HSVeW5d8zYOrT9yg8 v6IjJpPw==;
Received: from [] (port=42222 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <>) id 1mdz2Z-0003Sl-BP; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 19:13:15 +0100
From: Colin Perkins <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_19D60F80-E0B3-494F-A8B1-B12405F1D8CD"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Subject: Re: Workload constants [was I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt]
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 19:13:02 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Christian Huitema <>, IETF discussion list <>
To: "Salz, Rich" <>
References: <20211021005426.639E92B1D176@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
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, 22 Oct 2021 18:13:26 -0000

> On 22 Oct 2021, at 18:08, Salz, Rich <> wrote:
>>   There was a huge difference in another metric, the time from initial 
>>    draft to published RFC. Back in 1998, the median delay was one year. It 
>>    was already more than 3 years in 2008, and still is. Much of the delays 
>>    happen in the working group, from initial draft to last call.
> So the common beliefs that things are taking longer is wrong (for the past 13 years!) and that the delays are because WG's are sending less-good documents to the IESG is wrong.  My theory for the possible increased mail traffic is that folks are doing more business between meetings, and the increased use of GitHub which increases volume because of increased participation.

The measurements we’ve done recently show that the median time to publish RFCs is still trending slowly upwards, although there’s a lot of variation. The number of drafts it takes before an RFC is published is also trending up, as is the number of citations from RFCs to other drafts and RFCs (i.e., there are more cross references between documents).

One view might be that there’s a lot more legacy protocols and a bigger installed base that we need to take into account now, so RFCs are more complex and take longer to produce. I’m sure there are other factors involved too. 

Lots more data in <> if people are interested. 

Colin Perkins <>