RE: Enough is Enough.

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

Rob,

“An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at any time.”

This is what I want, full removal, why the IETF still need things that they don’t care about, if an ID attracted to attention inside the IETF, then it should be removed.

“I-Ds are stored in two places on the IETF web site. First, current I-Ds are stored in the I-D Repository. Second, current and past I-Ds are stored in a Public I-D Archive.”

No need for me to let them stored in the public I-D archive.

“As RFC 2026 says, the entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal at any time; however, I-Ds generally remain in the Public I-D Archive to support easy comparison with previous versions. This availability facilitates review, comment, and revision.”

None of these reviews, comment, and revision happened, and I’m not expecting them to happen with the recent IETF.

Conclusion: nothing says that I-D cannot be removed from both the I-D repository and the public I-D archive.

Khaled Omar

From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:14 PM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Timothy Mcsweeney <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Enough is Enough.

Hi Khaled,

There is an IESG statement on internet draft removal: https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/internet-draft-removal/

This statement explains why IDs are retained in the public archive and states that drafts are only removed in unusual circumstances.  However, before you send a request to the IESG, it is probably worth pointing out that an author deciding that they now wish to unpublish an internet draft is unlikely to qualify “as unusual circumstances”.

I suggest that you either just let the drafts expire, of publish a tombstone draft as previously suggested by Ted.

Kind regards,
Rob


From: ietf <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Khaled Omar
Sent: 20 October 2020 19:47
To: Timothy Mcsweeney <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Jay Daley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Enough is Enough.


>> it is important that the IETF (through the IETF Trust) own
   the copyright in documents that are published as RFCs (other than
   Informational RFCs and RFCs that are submitted as RFC Editor
   Contributions).

This is about RFCs not individual submitted drafts, I still have the right as the only author of all drafts to ask for the deletion, where is the issue?

Khaled Omar

From: Timothy Mcsweeney <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:33 PM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Jay Daley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Enough is Enough.

Read BPC 78 section 4 <" data-mce-href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78#section-4>">https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78#section-4><https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78#section-4>

That will cause you to click over to <" data-mce-href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4844>">https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4844><https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4844>

Inside RFC4844 try to locate the stream listed on your drafts.  Let us know what you find.




On 10/20/2020 2:20 PM Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Why no one is answering his question …..

Khaled Omar

From: Timothy Mcsweeney <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:12 PM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Jay Daley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Enough is Enough.

Personally, I can't think of any reason to keep the drafts laying around unless there is an intent to use some of its content down the road.  Is that the intent?


On 10/20/2020 1:57 PM Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Donald,

>> In my opinion, these drafts should not and will not be deleted. They will time out six months after posting and be removed from the active directory.

As they are submitted by the IETF, they can be removed by the IETF, it doesn't make any sense to be inactive or the six period ended and still saved at the IETF, I should end that from the roots, please take an action at least in removing the drafts.

Jay, I think that you are now the responsible person as said by Tim, please delete them ALL, easy thing.

Khaled Omar


-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 7:49 PM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Jay Daley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Enough is Enough.

Khaled,

You should give the file names if you submit a request related to drafts particularly as it seems that these drafts, except draft-omar-ipv10-12, do not follow the convention of including your name as the second token.

Assuming the other drafts have the same copyright and license notice as draft-omar-ipv10-12, you have granted copyright in these drafts jointly to the IETF Trust and yourself. The IETF Trust licenses IETF participants as in https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/IETF-TLP-5.pdf particularly Section 3.

In my opinion, these drafts should not and will not be deleted. They will time out six months after posting and be removed from the active directory.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [phone] (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 1:15 PM Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
Hi Jay,
>
>
Could you please do the following request?
>
>
Deleting these IDs completely from the IETF repository:
>
>
1) Internet Protocol version 10 (IPv10).
2) IPmix.
3) KHALED Routing Protocol (KRP).
4) Regional Routing Protocol (RRP).
5) Numbering Exchange Protocol (NEP).
6) Satellite Internet (SI).
7) ASN Label Switching Protocol (ALSP).
>
>
Thanks in advance.
>
>
Khaled Omar
>
>
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 7:10 PM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Enough is Enough.
>
>
I would ask an IESG member. And I think Jay Daley offered up [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on a different thread.
>
>
>
>
On 10/20/2020 1:00 PM Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
Dear IETFers,
>
>
I hope this is my last e-mail with the IETF and I’m not feeling coward to repeat my first request regarding deleting my drafts from the IETF repository.
>
>
Can anyone tell me whom is the responsible person for deleting drafts from the IETF?
>
>
P.S. I don’t want to find any BCP or whatever that mention that the original author of the draft has not the right to ask for deleting his drafts as this doesn’t make any sense.
>
>
I wish you good luck after the deletion and the ideas not being used by the IETF as they have no benefits as many claims.
>
>
Sorry for any disturbance.
>
>
Regards,
>
>
Khaled Omar
>
>
>