Hello Alexis,
Many thanks to you for all your work and for the report (most of it
deleted). Some comments on the editorial stream process below.
On 2025-12-18 09:07, Alexis Rossi wrote:
# Observations on the Editorial Stream Process
The current RSWG + RSAB model has sent 3 documents to the RPC in the past 3
years, and one more is currently nearing conclusion in the working group.
This pace has accelerated over time, as most of these documents are from
the past year, but it still seems like a slow pace for relatively
straightforward documents.
Participation in the RSWG is typically limited to a small number of active
contributors, and we’ve seen relatively long lags during those discussions.
Additionally, Last Call requests for broader community input have generally
not resulted in significant additional participation.
This may indicate a lack of controversy over these documents, and/or a lack
of wider community interest in Editorial policy.
I think it's both. These are issues that affect everybody in the IETF,
but not very strongly. Even the people participating have a day job, and
participate in actual technical IETF work, both of which usually have
higher priority than editorial issues.
I wasn’t present for the conversations preceding the creation of this new
Editorial Stream model, so there may be concerns or goals I’m not aware of
(except as they’re reflected in 9280 or this github repo [1]).
I wasn't involved in the situation that ultimately led to the current
model, but my understanding of that situation was that more direct
involvement directly by the IETF community at large was highly desirable.
However, I
think it may be time to consider whether the Editorial Stream process
should be adjusted to improve timeliness. For example, I think the IAB’s
document process (expert board combined with community review) may be a
useful model to consider.
First, standards processes are generally always slower than expected.
Also, for the editorial stream, in many cases, what's going on 'on the
ground' (i.e. how many technical RFCs can get published, in what
quality) is more important than how many editorial stream RFCs get
published.
The IAB model may look attractive, but the following should be considered:
1) IAB positions hold significant prestige, and the IAB works on
important and timely technical topics.
2) The IAB organizes workshops,..., and many documents are the result of
such workshops. There are many active participants in the workshops that
will occasionally nudge the editors. Still these reports usually take
about 1 year to reach RFC status.
3) As far as I understand (sorry, no first-hand knowledge), for many of
the IAB members, IAB membership and the related time effort, as well as
travel expenses,... is part of their employment.
4) I don't think all the IAB publications are done in a short time.
draft-edm-protocol-greasing-06, for example, exists already for about
2.5 years (there may be good reasons for this long time).
I am interested in community feedback on whether you think the current
model is working well and, if not, what changes might improve efficiency
and/or participation. Please feel free to share on list, or with me
directly.
My general evaluation is that the current model works well enough. The
energy that's around (which is as you say not that high) should at least
for the foreseeable future be spent on actual work (e.g. the current
documents in the editorial stream) rather than to tweak the model again
with unclear consequences.
Regards, Martin.
[1] https://github.com/rfcseries-wg/new-topics/issues
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
