Re: [IPsec] draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2 has been in RFC Editor queue for 123 days?

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 20 May 2020 03:07 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9353A094C for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2020 20:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 kBGO6g-GOpqx for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2020 20:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EAF53A094A for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 May 2020 20:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 04K37haA007505 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 May 2020 23:07:45 -0400
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 20:07:43 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Paul Wouters' <paul@nohats.ca>, ipsec@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200520030743.GT58497@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2005191335330.15337@bofh.nohats.ca> <20200519174859.GO58497@kduck.mit.edu> <alpine.LRH.2.21.2005191446020.16348@bofh.nohats.ca> <00f801d62e0f$d5c39480$814abd80$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00f801d62e0f$d5c39480$814abd80$@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/eyq4T-_1lyUBIl4Jbss-4V99-Ms>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2 has been in RFC Editor queue for 123 days?
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 03:07:52 -0000

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:00:58PM +0300, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > On Tue, 19 May 2020, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > 
> > >> Can the WG chairs or AD see about getting this unstuck and out the
> > door?
> > >
> > > There's a giant backlog in the "RFC-EDITOR" state (see
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php); my understanding is
> > that
> > > this accumulated in the gap period between Heather and John, and
> > there's
> > > not really a way to make the overall queue move faster.
> > 
> > Oh, I see.
> 
> Ben, thank you for the explanation. The draft has already 
> endured unfortunate delay in the WG, this one is just another unfortunate
> one.
> That is that.
> 
> > >  It is possible for
> > > the IESG to request expedited processing of a specific document, if
> > needed
> > > -- is there a timely need for an RFC number for this document that we
> > > should do so?
> > 
> > Ahh, no there is no reason for an expedited processing.
> 
> I agree with Paul (with co-author hat on).
> The code-points are already allocated and several vendors have implemented
> the draft.
> The only thing left is an RFC number to refer to, but we can wait for it.

Amusingly enough, it just entered AUTH48 this evening (and thus,
provisionally has an RFC number assigned).

-Ben