Re: Discussions in IETF WGs

SM <> Mon, 11 June 2012 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BADAC21F8582 for <>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.351
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8g1ZNjtfRR90 for <>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169FA21F84D8 for <>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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;; s=mail2010; t=1339434280;; 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;; s=mail; t=1339434280;; 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: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:54:27 -0700
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Discussions in IETF WGs
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8_PoshoJu61hm=qmhCAwViKBS_7gXf8M_zAfeE8Q=0ONw@mail.g>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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

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?