Stringency (RE: 12 problems)

[Henning Schulzrinne]

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/internet/IMR has the data and the .tcl 
scripts. The measurements I reported were:

year number of RFCs sampled  avg. delay (months)
1993 31                      5.5
1994 80                      8.4
1995 61                     10.5
1996 96                     12.4
1997 103                    14.4
1998 147                    19.6
1999 157                    19.8
2000 158                    24.2

Things change a bit on the tail end if we ignore all RFCs with duplicate
titles, where association with I-Ds is likely to be iffy:

1993 27 5.6
1994 73 8.0
1995 50 8.8
1996 90 12.2
1997 98 12.9
1998 123 15.0
1999 147 18.8
2000 139 19.1

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/internet/id-rfcyear.png
   Number of RFCs and I-Ds published each year, based on IMR reports from
the year 1991 and later

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/internet/rfcyear.png
   Number of RFCs published, also ratio to IETF attendance
(Ignore the year 2000 dip, as that's based on year-to-date statistics)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> 
> --On torsdag, januar 16, 2003 06:28:32 +0200 john.loughney at nokia.com wrote:
> 
>> Harald,
>>
>> Any stats of how long I-Ds take from WG Last Call completed to being
>> shipped to the RFC editor?  If this was examined over time, we may have a
>> better metric to see about IESG stringency ... If the this time has been
>> ballooning - especially in relation to other parts of a document's
>> lifetime, then we should assume there is some problem.  If it is not
>> dramatically increasing, then perhaps stringency would not be a problem.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the stats in the ID-tracker haven't been around long 
> enough to make sensible trend lines.
> A few years back, Henning Schultzerinne made scripts chewing through the 
> Internet Monthly Report (http://www.ietf.org/IMR/) to generate stats on 
> the time between -00 version publication, IETF-wide Last Call and RFC 
> publication - that's the source of the frequently quoted statistic that 
> "time has gone from 6 months to 2 years".
> 
> I've CCed him on this message; if he still has the scripts, and is 
> willing to share, we could get at least those numbers back again....
> 
>               Harald