IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Dealing with Design issues following Last Call

Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com> Fri, 18 December 2020 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <bkaduk@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5807F3A0978 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 13:50:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 JrlWM8DBHkYK for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 13:50:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (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 A064A3A0965 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 13:50:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0BILhqZh020392; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:50:38 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=jan2016.eng; bh=nciIVpr2oKvVyHVV5lUHmbK54SAbKaiurwozOLWK32U=; b=MAXjQXDW0XC3eMBufGIJpy9vu/NE9RCVALEAkRB5/CXUCbqgqeosIk59Jjh1fw5ahKlJ qCcM4wEKNzL4xWtFa3vkpDDGA+f+CIWxSh9Qo8QLamBi7uesjxAYVn5v923oUeOf9N5T a4rKCNolusjB0s/qD3c31aug9CaNfFVvUbd027Z7gPEnAoU1stwT02v5OJBjBTVvjcJP G5QR52/Wzu6NpVQArFu7k8P6F0BUQ3OuPG0p8Tb+JoTbEin/1oLhvtZE3PSu7huKKpwj 8wHRz8Z+v1BQhQbu36kF++eKzeD+2FaCT1F15ZfzIdNVvbqgVZdlxrgFMtZ/gCyOlXZl Fg==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint8 (a72-247-45-34.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.34] (may be forged)) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 35dvu3p31e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:50:38 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BILo0XS000877; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 16:50:37 -0500
Received: from prod-mail-relay19.dfw02.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.173]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com with ESMTP id 35ct33tjyh-1; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 16:50:37 -0500
Received: from akamai.com (sea-lp9yo.kendall.corp.akamai.com [172.19.16.134]) by prod-mail-relay19.dfw02.corp.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8E1603A1; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:50:36 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 13:50:36 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Cc: quic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Dealing with Design issues following Last Call
Message-ID: <20201218215035.GL3918@akamai.com>
References: <CALGR9oaAfy0jj=mqX1tiuKdE=Kk=mRHgv15pUUM1XHBMovkw4Q@mail.gmail.com> <20201218201131.GB34756@okhta> <CALGR9oZ13gFRjZERT9z6tEXZY+mxwncpiyPzwCuqK+BJemE98w@mail.gmail.com> <20201218205736.GC34756@okhta> <0f4fa906-2531-9e97-01eb-b3eb40922bbb@huitema.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0f4fa906-2531-9e97-01eb-b3eb40922bbb@huitema.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-18_13:2020-12-18, 2020-12-18 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=961 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012180148
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-18_13:2020-12-18, 2020-12-18 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=853 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1011 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012180148
X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 72.247.45.34) smtp.mailfrom=bkaduk@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/WmCNDId5fnD26MlbWEDeBGcX3IA>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:50:42 -0000

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 01:36:46PM -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
> On 12/18/2020 12:57 PM, Dmitri Tikhonov wrote:
> 
> > I am trying to prevent a situation where IESG approves -33 on one day and
> > the RFC is published two days later and we do not have the changes
> > implemented yet.  Then, we would really have to scramble!  Am I naive to
> > expect such speedy RFC turnaround?
> 
> Typical delay between IESG approval and final publication is 3-4 months.
> Very rarely fewer than 2 months. Could be more if caught behind a big queue,
> or if authors and copy editors get in a long discussion.

Indeed.

I think the fastest remotely plausible, with explicit requests to expedite things
and with authors very responsive during AUTH48, would be at least 3 weeks,
for a group of documents of this length.  (And I don't know of any desire to request
expedited processing anyway.)

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email