We thought it would be a simple process to publish one or two 100 page informational RFCs, get a bit of feedback and be done with it in a few months.
Two years later we had a working group and several mature internet drafts. I won't go into the drama about why the IDs never turned into RFCs, but my advice...
Never let anyone talk you into chartering a working group when all you want to do is publish an informational RFC. Also, when dealing with large multi-national companies with more lawyers and sales-people than engineers, make sure you get everything (notarized documents indicating they disclaim IP interests in the area of the internet draft) in writing first. Do not depend on them saying "hey, at the end of the process we're going to have to disclaim IP in this field anyway, so why would we lie to you?" They will wait until the last possible moment and then fail to disclaim their IP, scuttling the RFC process. I guess it's just in their nature.
I used to be quite active over there. Memory is fuzzy at this point but I recall that people reverse-engineered the protocol, so I'm curious how this all fits together.
But in history, RFCs became loose or strict standards. From that day on, everyone has tried have to their own RFC stamped; because there’s an economic advantage to being the standard bearer.
So, the process has become more and more convoluted to avoid having as many “standards” as there are interested parties.
Steve Crocker and Jon Postel must be laughing at us.
And an message to anyone in the way to vacate or feel the point of a gladius and the hobnails of a caliga.
They'd better, if they want to win a battle.
RFC #1 was basically a one-pager: https://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc?rfc=1#gsc.tab=0
RFC #371 was literally a conference advertisement: https://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc?rfc=371#gsc.tab=0
Seriously though... IETF process is the way it is because of a long history of humans arguing with each other over process, intent and interpretation. Add to that all the drama about IP in the 90s and you get a perfect storm of bureaucracy. But the weird thing is we're probably better off with the bureaucracy than without it. I only saw a bit of the process in 2008-2010 when I convened several BOF sessions and chartered a working group, but it did seem like the rules were there to prevent shenanigans.
I learned PLENTY of history in the Application area, none of which seemed to be documented anywhere. I would guess people had different recollections of that history anyway.
IETF process is byzantine, but if you ask around, the greybeards have a story or two describing why each bit of bureaucratic process was introduced.
You have a strange notion of “one-pager”. It’s eleven pages; strip headers, footers, excess blank lines, table of contents, and three diagrams, and it’s still over 300 lines (some 70 blank) and 2000 words.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_Request_f...
Definitely worth of a RFC!
Step 2: write an RFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFC
…and so on
And then https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template, though a bit elaborate, does automate a lot of IETF stuff, including use of kramdown-rfc.
FWIW, this isn't something that can only happen in the IETF. Lots of other SDOs can have this issue. Some (usually corporate sponsored) participants in SDOs participate solely to slow down/poison work. Usually as an effort to gain market share while things are debated and become the de facto standard rather than allow something they may not implement become standardized.
Interesting to see the process under the covers these days. Faintly depressing, when one compares to what one reads about the Postel steered early days.
Obligatory nod to my favourite bittersweet RFC-2468 (the number choice there has always struck me as a stroke of genius).
I once spent around 18 months to two years getting a corporation to use DHCP properly (ie stop registering all devices MAC addresses for static leases) and I consider that a quick win.
RFCs deal with the entire internets and should require quite a lot of oversight. Three and a half years for a BGP change is a breathtakingly fast change and frankly reckless!
Why is this an issue? @greyface-, you and your team are unable to work remotely because it's outside your environment?
If you don't like remote work, great. But, not everyone else enjoys wasting hours-per-week of their life commuting (unpaid) to an uncomfortable, cold office full of constant destraction and middle-school politics.
If you do, great! keep it to yourself instead of pushing an agenda that no one wants.
FWIW, I didn't write the article - I just posted it here.