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 []) 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-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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (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 []) 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 with SMTP id by4mr7475797vdb.103.1339236747487; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 03:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 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

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 >