RE: Enough is Enough.

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Khaled,

I would normally send a note like this offlist but you have
reacted badly to my doing that in the past.  So, with the
understanding that what follows is my personal opinion and that
I'm speaking only for myself...

When you first started suggesting ideas on the IETF list, and
then when you started posted drafts, you were advised (by me and
I think several others) that doing so involved sharing those
ideas with the IETF for use (or not) by the IETF community as it
saw fit -- that you were neither entitled to favorable
consideration and adoption/standardization of those ideas nor to
claim that they were exclusively yours and somehow un-submit or
un-discuss them.  This is really no different.

I've often wished that the IETF would still follow the spirit of
its original rules so that, when a draft "expired" it
disappeared from any public repository under the IETF's control.
But even that, just like "removing" a draft, would be, as others
have pointed out, only symbolic: there are copies of the
Internet Draft archive over which the IETF has no control.
Similarly, for many years (at least a decade and probably much
more) the IESG has tended to be very reluctant to take drafts
down and remove them from the public archive, even when those
drafts violate important guidelines about I-Ds and do so in way
that is likely to create confusion.  I don't agree with their
reasoning, but it is clear that procedures adopted with
community consensus allow them the discretion.

It is your right to ask that the drafts be removed but I think
you may want to think about what you are trying to accomplish:
even if the IESG agrees, it will not cause documents to
disappear from shadow archives that the IETF does not control,
it will not mean the Secretariat would ignore or resist a court
order to produce them from offline backups, it would not change
the status of any copyright rights that the IETF Trust acquired
when you posted the drafts, and it would not erase any IPR
disclosures you filed nor your obligation to file any that you
should have filed but did not.  So, again, I wonder (as others
have), what you expect to accomplish by this request even while
I recognize that your reasons may have little effect on whether
or not the request is granted.

regards and best wishes,
   john







--On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 19:30 +0000 Khaled Omar
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> So what are the benefits of freezing the water if no one is
> able to drink.
> 
> I think this time the IESG should approve the removal and not
> to deny as the first time, it is a decision not rules.
>...