Hi SM, I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard track document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or not consider? The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent.
AB On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:08 PM, SM <s...@resistor.net> wrote: > Hi Abdussalam, > At 08:50 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > >> I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would prefer >> groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to know the >> reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It is important >> that individuals get to make input to >> > > Failing to convince a WG can happen for any of the following reasons: > > (i) The arguments are unconvincing. > > (ii) The arguments are unrelated to the topic being discussed. > > (iii) The arguments look good on paper. Unfortunately, they won't > work in the real world. > > (iv) The other individuals do not like the individual. :-) > > The above reasons may not even be valid. > > Internet standards which seems bad and does not follow the IETF mission. >> Therefore, there >> SHOULD be a procedure to make participants follow to convince WG and a >> procedure that >> WGs follow to accept with reason, not just blocking excellent I-D >> because they group think it is bad with no reason or knowledgable >> discussion. If there is no procedure then >> > > If the group thinks that an I-D is bad, you can either accept that > conclusion or you can try to convince the group that it is wrong. If you > cannot convince the WG, there is always the Last Call where you get a > second opportunity to raise your issues. There are procedures if a third > opportunity is necessary. > > Around a month ago, Adrian Farrel asked the following question [1]: > > "May I have your permission to share this email with the > document authors." > > The answer [2] was: > > "Therefore, I don't want to give any permission to share with them, I > will > leave it to IESG. If IESG agrees to share any/all comments they received > to any/all author(s), I will have no objection." > > That's basically a no. The above puts the IESG in an unenviable position > to decide whether to share the email. > > Regards, > -sm > > 1. > http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/ietf/current/**msg74749.html<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74749.html> > 2. > http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/ietf/current/**msg74749.html<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74749.html> >
