Re: Discussions in IETF WGs
SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 11 June 2012 17:04 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 BADAC21F8582 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.351
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 8g1ZNjtfRR90 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169FA21F84D8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5BH4ZJ3001910; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1339434280; i=@resistor.net; bh=g1xKYQMMIMJx9Nb3zafUKatmmH9zQpL+xkAb+9tEtwo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=cEV11Qjq6l1xb3wcZHbyNwpsmefyIwqIbhYQ87G+UUICPz+CDhPqisFPK+RBfL4F3 Z7bMIFFEQavnmWK/GRJyrWKweNrZEUVer6L4EsEDHpszL2B5DrD9Oxe1DIUVSmr6tN Pa2D/PgWmffTuEzpUkBmS5OvurlCOi+IPiQIqnc0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1339434280; i=@resistor.net; bh=g1xKYQMMIMJx9Nb3zafUKatmmH9zQpL+xkAb+9tEtwo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=OAEonGBJAzGy6tTgLIkJfSZyKyhmOCKYy/GvuxalwE2hkIMYrpw/rQj9AQU4c5n0N 6uD6gP4PkeNoC/lVotGdTIk4/mP3+LEKm2xpmtLkeUh85RI3+2yebYiH3eesNZC9XK Gqr4xzRxyWeSPxKidiXl1DnERhbSeYhNI73l7qKE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120611093423.08d238b8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:54:27 -0700
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Discussions in IETF WGs
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8_PoshoJu61hm=qmhCAwViKBS_7gXf8M_zAfeE8Q=0ONw@mail.g mail.com>
References: <CADnDZ8_PoshoJu61hm=qmhCAwViKBS_7gXf8M_zAfeE8Q=0ONw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf@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: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:04:44 -0000
Hi Abdussalam, At 03:12 09-06-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >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. If someone is not aware of the old discussions about an issue it can be a problem. The issue may have to be discussed again when there isn't any new input available. Is the above related to discussions in the MANET WG? Regards, -sm
- 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