Subject: Re: [Techspec] New requirement for early permanent ID allocation

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:46:55 -0800

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-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:14:41 -0800

>was about 130, so the Expedited documents were about 10%.

Wow. And yuck.

>"Quick highest priority publication" is what we're doing now, but

That's unfortunate. OK, so back to early permanent ID allocation with 
a lot of rules about what the identifier means and how the publisher 
should handle it.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium