Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG (was: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site)

[Abdussalam Baryun]

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  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
> 2. 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/ietf/current/**msg74749.html
>

Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG (was: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site)

[SM]

Hi Abdussalam,
At 10:19 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
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.


There is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a 
Standards Track document.  An author can submit an I-D through the 
IETF Stream if the author would like the I-D to be published on the 
Standards Track.  A WG can adopt such an I-D.


Regards,
-sm

P.S. I read your message [1] again.  The first part seems to be about 
"the reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG".  The 
last part seem to be about "a procedure to make participants follow 
to convince WG and a procedure that WGs follow to accept with 
reason".  There was then an "AB" and three hyphens on the next 
line.  It is followed by "but is this Why not? I thought any I-D can 
be standard track,".  It was difficult for me to understand [2] the message.


1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75097.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg60902.html  

Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG (was: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site)

[Abdussalam Baryun]

SM>There is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a Standards
Track document. An author can submit an I-D through the IETF Stream if the
author would like the I-D to be published on the Standards Track. A WG can
adopt such an I-D.

Russ>The Independent Submission Stream cannot be used to produce standards
track RFCs.

So if I follow the second input above, then independent submission cannot
be used to produce standard, then it should go through WG. The question was
if there was disagreement from WG to accept, is there a procedure for the
submitter to follow, or he must follow the WG and forget about his work
(many inventions in the world were not convined by groups/experts, but were
invented only when inventor didn't follow them but followed reasoning).
Sorry if not clear,

AB
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:15 PM, SM  wrote:

> Hi Abdussalam,
>
> At 10:19 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> There is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a Standards
> Track document.  An author can submit an I-D through the IETF Stream if the
> author would like the I-D to be published on the Standards Track.  A WG can
> adopt such an I-D.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> P.S. I read your message [1] again.  The first part seems to be about "the
> reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG".  The last part
> seem to be about "a procedure to make participants follow to convince WG
> and a procedure that WGs follow to accept with reason".  There was then an
> "AB" and three hyphens on the next line.  It is followed by "but is this
> Why not? I thought any I-D can be standard track,".  It was difficult for
> me to understand [2] the message.
>
> 1. 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/ietf/current/**msg75097.html
> 2. 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/ietf/current/**msg60902.html
>