[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Target times for MIB Doctor Review
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 03:30:03PM -0500, David B Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't agree with
> > Perhaps there should be mechanism where a standards-track document
> > automatically becomes an informational (or even historic :) document
> > if the authors do not followup on IESG/AD/... comments withing a
> given
> > time period once a document is in the IETF publication machinery.
>
> Many people don't care about the status of an RFC, as long as it is an
> RFC. Look at RFC3164 for example; there are a number of vendors
> touting they have an RFC3164-compliant implementation of syslog. But
> RFC3164 is an Informational document that only "describes the observed
> behavior of the [BSD-style] syslog protocol"; it is not an IETF
> standard specification, and it turns out that many implementations of
> BSD syslog are totally incompatible except that their messages start
> with a <PRI> field.
>
> Having a poorly-written standards-track MIB module to be published as
> Informational or Historic RFC is much simpler for authors than meeting
> the rigors of passing MIB Doctor review.
Sure, the world at large does not care about RFC status levels. I
fully agree with that observation.
But then again, I find it important to include the authors in the
consideration when we talk about overall MIB review times. What you
are saying is that if authors do not follow up in a reasonably amount
of time, the document simply should not be published at all and just
be dropped.
Bert, can you shed some light what the actual time distributions look
like? What is the time distribution to a) finding a reviewer, b)
getting the initial review, c) going through the followup work? It is
hard to tell where to optimize without knowing the facts.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany