Subject: RE: draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-17

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:14:54 +0300

Hi Joyce & Bob,

I certainly don't want to be pointing fingers here, because that is not
my intention.

> Currently, the RFC Editor has internal documentation, but we have been
> reluctant to release it because some of the data is "dirty", so some
> explanation is required for correct interpretation.  We do share the
> current information with Harald Alvestrand and Leslie Daigle.  And if
> you ask the RFC Editor about any particular RFC, we can provide you
> with its history.
>
> I seems to us that folks do not seem to make use of the information
> that is available.  In particular, our online queue file
> (http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html).

As a WG chair, I just wanted to point out that the queue listed above
is usually quite cryptic - I myself have trouble really understanding
what the states mean in the queue. I was wondering if there is room
for improvement in the system - you meantion that the internal
documentation has dirty data - would it be difficult to create
a system to publish a sanitized version of the data, so we could
track status more closely?  For example, from your next note,
detailing the status of Diameter:

 IANA Action items completed on April 16.
 (Specifically creating a new registry and populating it.)

 Almost ready for Auth48 on June 13.

 Placed back in to IANA state on June 13.

I worked with IANA to setup the registry.  If I had known that
that work was not done (or at least incomplete), I would have
been more pro-active.  However, I had seen that it was stuck
in the queue due to IANA - I assumed (which was my mistake)
that this was a bug & it was stuck in the queue for some other
reason.

thanks,
John