I-D affects another or work in ietf groups

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Sat, 09 February 2013 03:56 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311D621F8C8C; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 19:56:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tqoHJydj5f3D; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 19:56:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com (mail-wg0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2396421F8C85; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 19:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id 15so3381148wgd.28 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:56:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=uk/WSJ54rio7QZNjsykrsef4gBPC7gYp0dwy8w0Pg6k=; b=WNTDgu8KLKU+O9YPeqpPekDfO36hr4nGINT6FNBqBHzOYl/t/HFvro5tkNwvavuJwA But2taWD6yNMZ8FSJ/BWB39DtGLvmWrma1YzIrM4jfl/W3/Zk0UtiBJQk/kfmGn8Ir4S guRoQaC+NwpE0I2btY786j4SwDrlyzSV/TYJgNoeWQtjIykdA/Icabjl6cmxhwfno9Y2 F5W1sC53heYnbs5HUDXHqMiByaf/wvlyV/mtV46bKQHYzZ/InczjUEGcdwksT491a/id 1Bxabcvx0rpYHyiCsNpgkrVTW2ujCxclZbofsIDarUeNWDcFgeVVlBaDfUSMi3uY6Dz4 kz7g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.109.102 with SMTP id hr6mr13339262wjb.24.1360382195170; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.101.70 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 19:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 04:56:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ883hHwFw2-aPhzx-KaGCzyEuOhjNf1=58DtiBP8rw0Z5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: I-D affects another or work in ietf groups
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 03:56:37 -0000

Hi folks,

Related to one discussion with a participant about I-Ds affecting WGs,
I have a question after reading two real incidents. The following two
work process examples are to show the I-Ds/RFCs affects from
participants point of view;

1) I got an understanding from one expert participant that his I-D is
not related to one RFC, even though it does involve similar objectives
and use-case, which was strange to me. So I understood from him that
his I-D is not affected by that RFC, even though his I-D does not
mention to exclude that RFC. IMO, I disagree with such producing I-D
by separate review-approach unaffected by other related RFCs (i.e. not
mentioned RFCs).

2) While I was discussing within a WG about an I-D which is a second
version of one IETF prorocol, some participants thought that the I-D
obsolete the old version even if not mentioned in the I-D. It then was
requested to update and mention that it does not obsolete the older
version. New versions are related and can affect each other, or affect
people understanding, which requires more careful presentation for
such I-D.

I beleive that we have one source of producing RFCs, so all I-Ds and
RFCs are related some how, and they affect each other. So when I
review an item, I always like to consider all RFCs as much as I can to
make Internet better.

Is that approach right for review? please advise,

AB