[rfc-i] Semantical question: are withdrawals/DNPs "published" ?

RFC Editor rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
Thu Apr 8 08:08:31 PDT 2010


We are familiar with the items you mentioned -- addressing them is part
of a larger future project to overhaul our reporting of statistics.
Improvements would include a long list of items that we have noted
over the years (the current stats system is over 10 years old). Please
see further comments inline.

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 09:52:03PM +0200, Alfred H?nes wrote:
> Looking at  <http://www.RFC-Editor.ORG/queue-stats/>  and the
> older RFC Editor statistics, it looks like "DNPs/Withdrawals"
> are getting counted in the monthly "Total published" (!) line.

DNPs and Withdrawals are counted in the Total Published because that
is the only way to indicate that the documents had exited the queue in
the current format.  After the pages were createad, we recognized that
we could represent the data better, but there were other programming
tasks with higher priority.

> However, since these drafts aren't published as RFCs, summing up
> twelve of these figures into the annual publication rate becomes
> problematic over time, mildly said. 

Yes, but the impact on the total published line is small, as
there are not many of them.  For example, there have been 3 in the
past 6 months, which is < 2% of the docs published.

> It might add to clarity if an additional "Total DNPs/Withdrawals"
> line could be added below the "Total published" line in the
> statistics, to restore the balance.

Right, something we will do as we reorganize our stats.

> Additionally, it is unclear how the Independent Submission
> stream is dealt with in the statistics pages.
> At best, in the future such drafts should be included into the
> RFC Editor statistics when they are approved for publication
> by the ISE and handed over to the Production Center (as is done
> in a similar way for the other streams) and then be listed in
> additional lines; currently it's not clear how these documents
> are dealt with -- the recent figures neither match the former
> expectation nor any other plausible assumptions; I assume for
> sure that published Ind.Sub. documents simply are listed as
> "[Informational and Experimental] Non Working Group".

> Similarly, IMO the IAB and IRTF stream deserve their own lines
> as well, for clarity.

Yes, this is something we also plan to do.  We already provide this
information in our IETF reports (e.g.,
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/IETFreports/2010/ -- slide 10).

> Final question: Are documents aiming at BCP counted in the
> statistics pages as "Standards Track" documents ?
> (Assumption based on perceived mismatches for recent figures.)

No, they are counted in the Info/Expr number, as are historic
documents.  These stats were developed long ago before BCPs were
considered quasi-standards-track documents.  It didn't make sense to
us to change the tracking system and then change it again when we do a
complete overhaul. 


> Kind regards,
>   Alfred.
> -- 
> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
> | Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
> | D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah at TR-Sys.de                     |
> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list