Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

["Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Lixia Zhang wrote:

> - how much gain vendors/users may get from publishing an RFC at 
>   time=T vs at (T + 2 months)

For T = (timestamp of approval) the publication will be at time
(T + x), and (T + x) > (T + 2 months) is by definition irrelevant.

With John's proposal "six weeks" it could be minimally faster,
but as he and others said, it makes no sense to change the rules
for a gain of about three weeks.  Implementors are not forced to
wait for the RFC number, they can start whenever they feel like
it.  

Harald's approximation of 0.6% was already very pessimistic, e.g.
he didn't aggregate the numerous "I really don't like RFC 4646"
appeals, and more important, he didn't count successful appeals
affecting "early" implementors in some way.

> The remedy here may also include the cost to those people who
> acted on a published RFC in its first 2 months.

Yes, or months earlier, for the case I have in mind more than
two years, millions of users, and a bunch of implementations.
Most happily ignoring the eventual "opt-out" remedy, I guess.

> so the question to me is really: can we quantify the values
> of those weight factors?

The damage can be significant (e.g. commercial implementation
ending up in /dev/null), harmless (e.g. if mail vanishes in
a black hole created by RFC y), or disastrous (same scenario
with an important mail).

 Frank
 





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf