Skip to main content
  • IETF mailing lists delivery issues resolved

    During a period from May 6 to May 9, a number of messages intended for IETF, IRTF, IAB, IESG, and RFC-Editor email lists were accepted by email services, but not forwarded to the list members or the list archives. All identified messages have now been processed by intended mailing lists for delivery to current list subscribers, and will appear in list archives.

    21 May 2024
  • Experimental survey of meeting non-returners

    We are experimenting with a new survey to help understand why people participate in one IETF meeting but not the meeting following.

    26 Apr 2024
  • IETF Community Survey 2023

    The final report on the IETF Community Survey 2023 is now available.

    25 Apr 2024
  • IETF Snapshot 2023

    Want to catch up on IETF activity in 2023? The IETF Snapshot provides a short summary of IETF activity for the previous year.

    17 Apr 2024
  • UN Report Calls for New Era for Digital Governance in which Tech Standards Respect Human Rights

    In a major milestone in the movement to consider human rights impacts of technology, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights details the obstacles and opportunities posed by technical standards setting to the enjoyment of human rights in a new report.

    16 Apr 2024

Filter by topic and date

Filter by topic and date

Balancing the Process

1 May 2013

One of the most rewarding parts of my job is talking to various IETF contributors or people who rely on our results, and trying to understand their experiences about the IETF process and what kinds of technical topics they expect us to tackle. This article focuses on the process aspects.

Number of Discusses per document 2004-2010
One piece of feedback that I consistently hear is that too much of the IETF process is centered on the later stages and in particular the IESG review.  Documents rarely sail through the IETF last call and IESG review unchanged. At least 90% of the documents get revised. Many of these fixes are editorial, but some have technical substance. It is surprising that documents that were expected to be ready as they left the working group need so much revision.

Having been involved in the process for many years, often the bigger changes at this stage relate to cross-area issues, or the fact that the careful reviews from the IETF last call, directorates, and 15 ADs often represents a significant increase in the number of non-WG people looking at the document.

While some of this is natural as the document gains more exposure, it is still painful. Often difficult tradeoffs get re-discussed at this stage, late surprises are discovered, and significant document changes occur. These drawbacks are amplified by our informal processes through which changes are introduced. While we try to keep the working groups in the loop, sometimes the discussion happens directly between authors and reviewers or ADs. The WGs are not always directly informed, and it is rare to conduct formal last calls.

All this results in uncertainty for the progress of documents through the IETF, increases the work load of the IESG, and makes the working groups not be as central to the standards process as they should be. And yet, based on my experience a vast majority of those changes were necessary before the RFCs got published.

But is there a way to improve our process on this aspect? We are discussing some of these issues in an IESG retreat that is coming up next week in Dublin, Ireland. Input on these topics would be valuable. Are these problems real? What suggested methods could be used to reduce their effects? Why are we not doing more cross-area reviewing (by ADs or otherwise) earlier in the process? Please send feedback directly to me or discuss at the mailing list.

P.S. In case you were wondering where the graph came from – it is from my IETF statistics page, but unfortunately the IESG measurement parts have not been working well in the last couple of years. I’m working on fixing them, but for this article I had to include an older statistic. Intuitively, current situation is similar to that in 2010.


Share this page