Subject: How long does it take on an average for WG I-Ds?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:59:28 -0500

How long does it take for an I-D in the current system?

At least one view:

From the point of: Completion of I-D by editor or author of a WG draft
(that is after it has undergone a few revs in the WG itself)

1. WG Last call					  2 Weeks
2. I-D revision based on WG LC comments 	  ~8 Weeks
At which point WG chairs submit the draft to the ADs for review
3. AD review					  ~6 weeks
4. Time for addressing AD comments and I-D revision ~8 Weeks
Draft submitted to ADs for IETF last call
5. IETF Last Call				   2 Weeks
Comments are expected from IETF LC. Rarely are any received.
6. IESG review					   ~8 Weeks
7. Time for addressing Discuss items and submitting
   revised I-D			     		   ~12 weeks
8. Time to get IESG approval on revised I-D	   ~4 weeks
9. RFC ed queue					   ~12 weeks

Total time : About 62 weeks 

Is this the general experience of others in the IETF? Thoughts?

-Basavaraj

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:23:28 +0300 (EEST)

> 2. I-D revision based on WG LC comments 	  ~8 Weeks

Why so long?  (The document should already reflect WG consensus pretty 
well, and a lot of *major* issues shouldn't turn up now, much less need 2 
months to resolve.) 

> 3. AD review					  ~6 weeks

Why so long?  (If the spec was simple and of good quality, it would need 
less attention from the AD, and he might be able to do it in 1-3 weeks.)

> 4. Time for addressing AD comments and I-D revision ~8 Weeks

Why so long? (Again, why so many major issues crept up which were 
difficult to resolve?)

> 6. IESG review					   ~8 Weeks

Why so long? (See 3.)

> 7. Time for addressing Discuss items and submitting

Why so long? (See 4.)

> 8. Time to get IESG approval on revised I-D	   ~4 weeks

Ok.

> 9. RFC ed queue					   ~12 weeks

9 not really important as the RFC has already been approved.   In any 
case, I recall the time being much less for actual editing job rather than 
waiting for normative references to go RFC, or whatever.  But I don't 
recall the details (some IESG/IAB plenary) and can't find them right now.

What do I mean with "Why so long?"  Well, two factors:

 1) if the document was of appropriate quality (in all aspects), there 
would be fewer issues raised, and they would be easier to address

 2) I really don't see how, on average, you need 2 months to edit a 
document to resolve issues (unless the spec is very complex and gigantic; 
also see 1)

But, of course, this is how it *should* be, not how it is in practice.. 
:-)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:37:02 -0700 (PDT)

AAA WG has had documents in the RFC Editor queue since 12/02 with no
gating issues.  So it appears that RFC ed queue may be closer to 24 weeks
or even longer.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:57:24 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:23 PM
> Subject: Re: How long does it take on an average for WG I-Ds?
...
> well, and a lot of *major* issues shouldn't turn up now, much less need 2
...

I think this is an important observation.  The longer it takes the WG
to wrap up last call, the more likely it is that folks weren't paying
attention before that time.  Furthermore, the more churn during
WG last call, the more likely it is that what goes forward will have
lots of residual problems, thus multiplying the amount of time
required for each of the subsequent steps.

Compounding the problem, not all editors are equally good
at implementing agreed revisions.  I've made the mistake
of assuming that an editor's agreement to make a change
meant that I wouldn't have to re-review a section of a document.

I wish I knew how to fix it.

Randy

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:45:27 -0400

>gating issues.  So it appears that RFC ed queue may be closer to 24 weeks

Yet, the RFC editor has time to publish individual submissions?

Are there any particular rules regarding prioritization within
the RFC editor?  And does the IETF have any influence over
those priorities?

Margaret

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 18:17:02 -0400 (EDT)

I do not think you want to have an absolute priority - it would
block all independent RFCs - I think you want something like what
the RFC Editor does - quite a few  more IETF (WG) RFCs are published
than independent but some independent are published - 
see the stats at http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue-stats/

Scott

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:39:00 +0300 (EEST)

> gating issues.  So it appears that RFC ed queue may be closer to 24 weeks

You mean this? (http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html)

2002/12/12   draft-ietf-aaa-transport-12.txt
RFC-EDITOR   received new version 4/14/03
B. Aboba, J. Wood
Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) Transport Profile
Bytes: 87752

Unfortunately, the RFC editor's *current* publication queue does not tell 
which states the document has been in before the current "RFC-EDITOR" 
state.

What I'd really like to know is the effective time rfc-editor takes; 
excluding time taken in states like REF, AUTH, AUTH48, or IESG.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:06:50 -0700 (PDT)

> 2002/12/12   draft-ietf-aaa-transport-12.txt

And also this:

2003/01/27   draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-17.txt
RFC-EDITOR
P. Calhoun, J. Loughney, E. Guttman, G. Zorn, J. Arkko
Diameter Base Protocol
Bytes: 339184

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:27:00 +0200

> the RFC editor?  And does the IETF have any influence over

The RFC Editor does put IETF documents at a higher priority than individual 
submissions. However, that only helps for the EDIT and RFC-EDITOR states of 
the state diagram....

The EDIT queue of the RFC Editor currently (June 9) stands at 3.5 weeks... 
the oldest document in EDIT state is this:

EDIT          3.5 draft-smith-urn-mpeg-01.txt                  35.0

The diameter doc is in RFC-EDITOR state, and has been there for more than 7 
weeks, which means that IANA is supposed to be finished with it:

RFC-EDITOR    7.7 draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-17.txt               19.1

Note that the dreaded REF state (oldest document has been there for 44 
weeks!) comes *after* the RFC-EDITOR state, according to 
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/rfc-editor-process.gif

The RFC Editor's site at http://www.rfc-editor.org/ is a nice source for 
this kind of information.

                 Harlad