IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] getting heads up on RFC-editor state for a draft

Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> Wed, 23 March 2022 11:50 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F153A0C5B for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1648036215; bh=N3HeZUDfBoOvnxDD93ZXjwwNbQVmHVUQ4CK1ZBVM8m4=; h=Date:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Cc; b=Ji2cMSBlZcRe5kRD0Gpf798pRsSffI5Ofu2RNdw2yns11wabfV53TlNK/NNyEORst e3gcfZvqlATgQPP9fLoVnXqibwt1Xf1cVMN+tYUtzg8iuGD2Npp42A2/tWnSeaFNuZ p6Edh7whYLBgoXmxftWXGzLVfkMpXbpkuY4Q7rRQ=
X-Mailbox-Line: From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Wed Mar 23 04:50:14 2022
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FDA3A0B06; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1648036214; bh=N3HeZUDfBoOvnxDD93ZXjwwNbQVmHVUQ4CK1ZBVM8m4=; h=Date:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Cc; b=baFXXC/cG4mLTl6yfxrEeZ0CBe0N2RECD/axmp4W03l97KUKsbMgAiOnnR78WS8sH wumC/6nHLIYbZYrMvoilAEp8uQTEryBzoEF79mGX07xrzpBLtS5vHtH8aVWAH9+S/Z tuO+zYPooau9orerGn06bDuvI6OTJiZm4ZZ8GQro=
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E702D3A0ACA for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 Fk9_1dPFdhsN for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0F5C3A155F for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) id 8FF2C31782; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA4931783 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ei2dUw8X69Ai for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79DB431782 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E585D427C641; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mn7eO3UvXLkD; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.203] (unknown [47.186.48.51]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE81F425A344; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f26ebf5c-4596-a955-5b74-9fd25d7ac25d@amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:49:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <738138.1647941180@dooku> <5ece0f3f-4271-227c-34b9-54cc1b7802c6@amsl.com> <AC3B7B22-ABC9-4221-9A2D-31CDE4238554@tzi.org>
From: Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <AC3B7B22-ABC9-4221-9A2D-31CDE4238554@tzi.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/MU8yUNLClWiUrFYFjRh0JSMI6S0>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] getting heads up on RFC-editor state for a draft
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hi Carsten,

On 3/22/22 5:14 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 22. Mar 2022, at 22:44, Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> wrote:
>> [1] Things are moving fairly quickly at the moment -- the average number of weeks in EDIT and RFC-EDITOR states is 1.7 and 1.2, respectively:  https://www.rfc-editor.org/reports/CurrQstats.txt
> Hi Jean,
>
> this is amazing.
>
> I used to take the transition to RFC-EDITOR state as my scheduling hint, but then there was a period when that started to take months (and of course not pure FIFO, so there was little predictive value).
> Great to see we are back to a *very* short queue!
>
> Beyond the author time scheduling issue, it is also interesting to see the actual AUTH48 time-so-far distribution (3.2 median, 8 average! Long-tailed indeed.) and AUTH48-DONE as well (5 and 13.5!).
> These statistics don’t tell me how many of the latter dominating the 13.5 week (1/4 year) average are waiting for other documents to complete, but I guess that is most of them — the unproblematic ones are already published and don’t lower the average.

[JM] You're right about the standalone RFCs: they don't linger in 
AUTH48-DONE. For these documents, AUTH48-DONE is for updating any IANA 
registries if needed and performing final checks before publishing, and 
these steps go pretty quickly. The documents with long AUTH48-DONE times 
are cluster docs waiting for other documents in their cluster to finish 
AUTH48.

The list of active clusters and their document states can be found here: 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php

Currently there are 22 active clusters, with 16 of those having at least 
one MISSREF.

Best regards,

Jean

>
> (The average MISSREF weeks (one year!) show a fundamental problem with normative references, but that is a much more complicated process issue.)
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email