On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:29:51 -0400
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Thierry Ernst wrote:
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a
chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish
their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the
entire IETF community.
that's a really amazing statement. If I were participating in a WG
whose chair had that attitude, I'd be lobbying hard with the IESG for
another chair, as I'd suspect that the incumbent chair was
inappropriately hostile to introduction of new ideas within the WG.
Sorry, what "attitude" are you talking about here ? I was speaking
about people who publish drafts but never say a word to anyone about
their draft. What's the purpose ?
it used to be the case that merely publishing a draft would get some
attention for it. these days, that amount of attention is probably very
small.
also, publishing an I-D might be useful for other reasons - e.g. to
establish prior art in case an idea or invention in the draft is ever
patented by someone else.
OK, this may be a valid reason (though I doubt the IETF process of
publishing I-D has been designed for such a reason).
and how do you know that the authors never say a word to anyone about
their draft?
Well, I meant the WG doesn't know, but individuals who monitor
i-d-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org may. I just wonder why as an author I would
take
my time to write a draft which deal with protocol ABCD and not announce
it on the ABCD mailing list. To me this is non sense, and my
interpretation is that the intend is not to inform ABCD but to get the
document published (with no reviews). I'm working in the academic world
and I've seen many claims of documents published to the IETF, in some
universities it could be perceived as an international publication or
as being discussed within the IETF while it's not.
If the purpose is to get new ideas
through, I don't see how publishing a draft and non advertising is
useful for the sender (it may for the reader). But more importantly, I
don't see what you see as "hostile" in the observation above.
perhaps I misunderstood. I just don't want to further raise the barrier
for publishing I-Ds, because it's easier for the community to deal with
ideas published in that form than, say, on a web page or blog.
This I agree, as for establishing prior art.
Anyway, your comment would have been more productive if you had said so
in the first place rather than accusing chairs of hostility (with no
obvious reason).
Thierry
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf