Network Working Group S. Schubert
Internet-Draft sip101
Intended status: Informational October 12, 2006
Expires: April 15, 2007
Analysis of SIPPING WG and its efficiency
draft-schubert-sipping-wg-analyzed-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This draft looks at drafts revision cycle, general submission trends
from the past few years, average time-frame for draft to become an
RFC, impact of presentations to RFC publcation etc. Through this
analysis, this draft hopes to aid in the discussion of how SIPPING WG
may improve its efficiency on draft handling etc.
Schubert Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Analysis of SIPPING WG and its efficiency October 2006
Table of Contents
1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Method used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. General Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Average Time Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Publication Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Submission Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Agenda Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Room for improvements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
12.1. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
12.2. Informative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 7
Schubert Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Analysis of SIPPING WG and its efficiency October 2006
1. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119[1].
2. Introduction
There has been quite a few discussions on SIPPING Mailing list
regarding how the WG may improve the efficiency of draft handling,
RFC publications etc.
Although some suggestions were made and discussed there were no data
nor statistics to support the justification of some of the ideas
presented.
This draft looks at various statistics and trends and raises some
questions hoping to aid in the discussion.
3. Method used
Each WG items, RFCs and individual drafts intended for SIPPING WG
were analyzed and categorized for their intentions. Date of
composition for each revisions on all the drafts and RFCs were
recorded and were further filtered for the following purposes.
1: To observe the trends in number of draft submission.
2: To find the average time-frame for draft to become an RFC.
3: To find the average time-frame for draft to finish the
publication process..
4: To find the average time-frame for draft to become a WG items.
5: To observe the correlation between the revision cycle and RFC
publicaton .
For each IETF meeting, agenda requests and actual agenda items were
also analyzed to find the following facts.
1: To see the trends in agenda requests being denied.
2: To find the correlation between agenda presentation and its
impact on RFC publication.
3: To find the average numbers of presentations given until draft
becomes an RFC.
Schubert Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Analysis of SIPPING WG and its efficiency October 2006
4. General Facts
Followings are some of the numbers describing the SIPPING WG.
1: First WG session was held in IETF 51 (5 years ago).
2: WG has accepted 74 drafts as a WG items.
3: WG has published 30 RFCs(6RFCs/year).
4: WG has 26 active drafts as of Oct. 2006.
5: Out of 74 drafts, 6 of the WG items are considered dead.
6: Out of 74 drafts, 5 of the WG items moved to other WG.
7: Out of 74 drafts, 8 of the WG items changed its name or merged
to another draft.
8: WG has received 267 draft submissions since IETF 51.
5. Average Time Frames
RFCs from SIPPING WG were analyzed to find out the following average
time-frame.
1: For individual draft to become a WG item : 8.9 months
2: For draft to reach the final revision : 16.4 months
3: Between the final revision to RFC pub. announcement : 8.3 months
4: Total for individual draft to become a RFC : 33 months
5: Average revision cycle : 3.6 months
6. Publication Cycle
RFCs from SIPPING WG were analyzed to see if the revision cycle has
any impact on how fast the specification would progress. And
interesting enough, shorter the revision cycle shorter the total
time-frame for a draft to become an RFC.
1: For WG item with average revision cycle of 3 months or less : 20
months average from individual draft to RFC.
2: For WG item with average revision cycle of 3 months to 6 months
: 38.6 months average from individual draft to RFC.
3: For WG item with average revision cycle of 6 months or more :
47.5 months average from individual draft to RFC.
4: * P-header's average time-frame for becoming an RFC : 8 months
7. Submission Trends
This section looks at the number of draft submissions, number of
newly accepted WG items and number of RFCs published in 5 years span.
Schubert Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Analysis of SIPPING WG and its efficiency October 2006
* number of draft submissions does not exclude the submission of new
draft.
= IETF51-55 =================================
1: Number of average active WG items: 8.4
2: Number of new WG items: 21
3: Number of RFCs published: 3
4: Number of new individual drafts:70
5: Number of WG items submissions: 55
6: Number of individual submissions: 97
7: Number of total drafts submissions: 152
= IETF56-60 =================================
1: Number of average active WG items: 23.6
2: Number of new WG items: 17
3: Number of RFCs published: 10
4: Number of new individual drafts: 94
5: Number of WG items submissions: 85
6: Number of individual submissions: 173
7: Number of total drafts submissions: 258
= IETF61-65 =================================
1: Number of average active WG items: 29
2: Number of new WG items: 15
3: Number of RFCs published: 10
4: Number of new individual drafts: 95
5: Number of WG items submissions: 110
6: Number of individual submissions: 207
7: Number of total drafts submissions: 317
8. Agenda Trends
TBD
9. Room for improvements?
Although SIPPING was initially formed to filter work going into SIP
WG for SIP WG to better address the drafts that are of interests of
SIP WG, looking at the figures above it may be now SIP WG that needs
to take back some of the task it delegated to SIPPING WG. Here are
some questions we may want to consider and its reasoning.
Schubert Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Analysis of SIPPING WG and its efficiency October 2006
1: Is it necessary to analyze the requirements in SIPPING WG when
the outcome is going to need a new SIP header or any other
extensions that need to be further addressed in SIP WG? (New
response code etc.)
2: Is it necessary to analyze the requirements in SIPPING WG when
the specification is addressing a security problems in SIP?
3: Can the WG prevent itself from accepting WG items that will die
without becoming an RFC?
10. Security Considerations
There is no Security Consideration associated with this draft.
11. IANA Considerations
There is no IANA Considerations.
12. References
12.1. Normative Reference
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
12.2. Informative Reference
[2] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Peterson, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
Author's Address
Shida Schubert
SIP101
1094 15 Ave W
Vancouver, BC V6H 1R6
Canada
Phone: +1 604 762 5606
Email: shida@sip101.net
URI: http://www.sip101.net/
Schubert Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Analysis of SIPPING WG and its efficiency October 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Schubert Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 7]