Sorry, I missed this mail in the thread so ignore my previous request for 
statistics.  

>From discussions within the organizations Allison cited (3GPP, 3GPP2, OMA), 
>there is a building reluctance to take work into IETF because of a feeling 
>that it will take too long even when the id is very simple.  In many cases 
>there is little problem getting technical agreement and stability, but the 
>publication delay is long.  We can't really ask IETF to expedite every one of 
>our dependency documents and most of them are normative references which are 
>needed to meet our deadlines.

Regards, Stephen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allison Mankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 10:47 PM
> To: Paul Hoffman
> Cc: Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS); [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Techspec] New requirement for early permanent ID
> allocation 
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> > Given the complexity you describe, and the rareness of the need, 
> > might it not be better to change the requirement to "quick 
> > highest-priority publication"? The permanent identifier comes with 
> > that for free, of course. As long as this only comes up a 
> few times a 
> > year (and I think that is more than has been seen to date)
> 
> It's more than a few times a year.  There were 14 documents processed
> for Expedited Publication in December through February (so far) -
> The total RFCs published in this time (my count, may not be perfect)
> was about 130, so the Expedited documents were about 10%.
> 
> Expedited documents entail significant extra effort by the RFC Editor
> and the authors, AD, and WG Chair shepherds, as well as affecting
> the queue.
> 
> Want more?
> 
> Some SDOs which use our work a lot, 3GPP, OMA, 3GPP2, have sites with
> lists of the drafts and when these drafts need to be citable because
> the SDO's work gets finished.  IETF folks and folks from the SDO
> hold discussions to adjust the expectations in both directions, but
> these lists have over 50 documents and dates.  
> 
> "Quick highest priority publication" is what we're doing now, but
> it's pretty painful.
> 
> Allison
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec

Reply via email to