Evaluation of a Sample of RFC Produced in 2018
draft-huitema-rfc-eval-project-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Christian Huitema 
Last updated 2020-11-09 (latest revision 2020-10-25)
Stream ISE
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
IETF conflict review conflict-review-huitema-rfc-eval-project
Stream ISE state Sent to the RFC Editor
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd Adrian Farrel
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2020-10-25)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to Adrian Farrel <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
IANA action state No IANA Actions
RFC Editor RFC Editor state EDIT
Details
Network Working Group                                         C. Huitema
Internet-Draft                                      Private Octopus Inc.
Intended status: Informational                          October 25, 2020
Expires: April 28, 2021

             Evaluation of a Sample of RFC Produced in 2018
                   draft-huitema-rfc-eval-project-07

Abstract

   This document presents the author's effort to understand the delays
   involved in publishing an idea in the IETF or through the Independent
   Stream, from the first individual draft to the publication of the
   RFC.  We analyze a set of randomly chosen RFC approved in 2018,
   looking for history and delays.  We also use two randomly chosen sets
   of RFC published in 2008 and 1998 for comparing delays seen in 2018
   to those observed 10 or 20 years ago.  The average RFC in the 2018
   sample was produced in 3 years and 4 months, of which 2 years and 10
   months were spent in the Working Group, 3 to 4 months for IETF
   consensus and IESG review, and 3 to 4 months in RFC production.  The
   main variation in RFC production delays comes from the AUTH-48 phase.

   We also measure the number of citations of the chosen RFC using
   Semantic Scholar, and compare citation counts with what we know about
   deployment.  We show that citation counts indicate academic interest,
   but correlate only loosely with deployment or usage of the
   specifications.  Counting web references could complement that.

   The RFCs selected for this survey were chosen at random and represent
   a small sample of all RFCs produced, and only approximately 10% of
   the RFCs produced in each of 1998, 2008, and 2018.  It is possible
   that different samples would produce different results.  Furthermore,
   the conclusions drawn from the observations made in this document
   represent the author's opinions and do not have consensus of the
   IETF.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Huitema                  Expires April 28, 2021                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                RFC-Eval-2018                 October 2020

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Defining the Important Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Selecting a Random Sample of RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Analysis of 20 Selected RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  8411  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  8456  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  8446  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  8355  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.5.  8441  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.6.  8324  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.7.  8377  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.8.  8498  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.9.  8479  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.10. 8453  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.11. 8429  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.12. 8312  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.13. 8492  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.14. 8378  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     3.15. 8361  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     3.16. 8472  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
Show full document text