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
