ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

2012-09-25 11:12:08


--On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 16:50 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
<abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 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 new standards not only companies.
... 
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 individuals or other
organisations will look for another way to standards their
work.

It seems to me that the above has nothing to do with the topic
of removing I-Ds from the archive.  As far as I know, the number
of I-Ds that have been taken down --or even expired early
without recourse-- in the history of the IETF because someone
didn't like the ideas has been zero.   More important, someone
who believes that a WG unreasonably rejected a useful idea or
who wishes to see the reasons for WG decisions documented has
several ways to accomplish that.   An Informational discussion
could be submitted as an individual submission to the IESG or as
an independent submission to the ISE.  My experience and
observation is that such analyses or critiques are almost always
published as RFCs --the really permanent, archival, form around
here-- if they are thoughtful and well-reasoned.  I've seen
rants rejected for RFC publication, but that is because they are
unsupported rants, not because they disagree with some community
conclusion.

   john

p.s. As someone who has spent far more of my IETF existence as
an individual rather than as someone supported by, much less
controlled by, a company, I see company domination as a risk but
not one that has been an actual problem in any but a very small
number of specific topics/areas.




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>