--On Monday, March 25, 2013 09:05 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
<stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im> wrote:
On 3/25/13 1:11 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
AB,
I've been following this first with increasing amusement,
... not!
A search on Baryun for IDs on the RFC Editors web page gives
the following result:
"o Based on your search of [Baryun] in the All Fields field
zero matches were made."
Time to terminate this "discussion"?
Actually the following search ...
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=baryun&rfcs=on&a
ctiveDrafts=on&oldDrafts=on&search_submit=
... yields ...
draft-baryun-manet-technology-00 MANET Subnet Technologies
Considerations 2012-07-30 Expired
draft-baryun-manet-terminology-00 Terminology in Mobile Ad hoc
Networks 2012-07-04 Expired
draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00 Key Words of Conditional
Language of Requirements Levels 2012-07-31 Expired
draft-baryun-roll-nap-00 The Node Ability of Participation
(NAP) 2012-08-01 Expired
And, actually, this is more interesting. I don't follow MANET
or ROLL, but the 2119 update got some discussion on the IETF
list. If we think we have good ideas, most of us listen
carefully to the discussions and then generate -01 drafts that
attempt to incorporate the suggestions and deal with the
objections. Here, the documents are abandoned at -00. The
author has moved on to complaining about how badly the IETF and
various of its WGs are broken instead of trying to work with the
community to refine the ideas.
That has nothing to do with whether the particular contributions
in MANET should be acknowledged in any particular document. Had
either of the two I-Ds listed above that were addressed to that
WG gotten traction we might be having a discussion now about who
he would see fit to acknowledge. But, instead, we see expired
-00 drafts and a lot of complaints.
Sad situation for all concerned.
john