Discussions in IETF WGs
Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Sat, 09 June 2012 10:12 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 ABAC621F8A0B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 03:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.528
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wHo7rdmXTX2E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 03:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42AD21F8A07 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 03:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so1737929vbb.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 03:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=40eRSDnaAmdgjBNKRL7tPrwS+ZCCsho7Za3OGQVuS9A=; b=mkqDJloWLZLhVC0qhQ0lIWOvrCMHag0blVXpPcFhCvqUO0lC+o2USxS+yunOrFy9K6 7GjKcbOHO2GWwG0JO+GbprGRhS6UflxX9uzQYWEWxT0HyAOJ4eFTdIUxQNWbHytpl89S 559DsY1dN73WWZyp6CrTObMTAQLBPxZ2RQutDUwyxzk+lAJnyCfcqU4E2DhXCDLg22MU 9xLBwSdo3ZEJZbVzFPP7+Z7Ooxu1xArRyJqeZTuH8dsdaJglT2I+FpmMdh0OIl8R3iSx LdE0i5IM6zAxLG+hl92T1K0RBoHfROq/aUgvfIv+C33BoMTJRkPi9bX49sSn0jiADsAd t/qA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.90.196 with SMTP id by4mr7475797vdb.103.1339236747487; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 03:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.98.77 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 03:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:12:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8_PoshoJu61hm=qmhCAwViKBS_7gXf8M_zAfeE8Q=0ONw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Discussions in IETF WGs
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:33:26 -0700
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 Jun 2012 10:12:28 -0000
++++++++++++++++ Possible Duplication +++++++++++++++ Hi Folks, IMHO, there are difference between discussion that MAY become argumentable and/or debatable. In a healthy-discussion you produce new ideas and educate yourself and others, but in unproductive-discussion you MAY block any progress and waste time. I define productive discussion as the posting/speaking of a point of view referenced by scientific facts or RFCs. I define debates as the posting/speaking of points without good-referencing or without good-reasoning. IMHO these debating inputs with no good reference will not provide progress in discussions, even though it may (in low probability) start indirectly an interest/input to a work-in-progress. For example, in one of the WG discussion on list, two members of WG have referenced a history-discussion and informed me to read them regarding some subject, I did do that but was *lost in translation*. I now think that the memebrs' advise was to a wrong direction. We SHOULD NOT refer in our current discussions to any other history-subjected-discussions (thoes discussion had no approve by WG consensus nor IESG review) in any WGs. Also referring to old discussions in the list result to waste time and MAY make current arguments long (i.e. long means more than 5 working days), or even makes the current argument unproductive.Old-discussions MAY be misleading/incorrect/invalid, even if they are helpful to gain some knowledge. We should *reference* mostly RFCs in our discussion, because RFCs are correct resource. The reason is because only RFCs are productions of healthy discussions and reviewed by experts in IESG. IMHO the IETF sees that RFCs are the correct-progress-reference. All Discussions are important for the IETF processes and to produce RFCs. Memebers of the WG should try to direct their discussions in the direction of progress without discouraging debate-input. Discussions that produce I-D that in the end submits <I-Ds are work-in-progress> are the most productive discussions. IMO it is accepted in discussions to reference scientific research papers, reviewed publications, industry experience, or RFCs, but please don’t accept in discussion the validity of ; a) a reference to a specific historic discussion that possibly were with wrong arguments, or b) a reference to unproductive discussions. In conclusion, we should try with the help of the WGs chairs to direct our discussions to become more productive, and within a reasonable time, and if we see any good-correct ideas, we SHOULD react quickly and input in a informational I-D and submit to WG for approval so we don't repeat refering to wrong-argumental-discussion. If you feel differently please advise, thanking you :) Best regards Abdussalam Baryun University of Glamorgan, UK. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ < In discussions one may be wrong, or may be right, but it does not matter if we work together as a group to progress and resolve all issues. IETF WGs are always right > ****************************************************************************************
- Discussions in IETF WGs Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Discussions in IETF WGs Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Discussions in IETF WGs SM
- Re: Discussions in IETF WGs Martin Rex
- Re: Discussions in IETF WGs Abdussalam Baryun