RE: Enough is Enough.

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toerless,

>> Was un-publishing previously requested and rejected ?

Yes that occurred, and since that rejection nothing moved forward, drafts never reviewed officially, only one draft (NEP) was discussed remotely with the RTGWG (thanks to Jeff, Yingzhen Qu and Chris) but the new idea that the draft proposes was suddenly being seen implemented by cisco which is not acceptable without informing the draft author.

>> Personally, i think IESG should consider removing the drafts if so requested, putting respect for a community member before operating principles, but of course also weighting respect for the rest of the community:

No decision taken till now after the second request was made other than Christian's suggestion of submitting a tombstone version.

Regards,

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2020 5:40 PM
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=[e-mail]>
Cc: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Enough is Enough.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 07:13:31PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Hi Khaled,
> 
> There is an IESG statement on internet draft removal: 
> https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/internet-draft-removal/

> This statement explains why IDs are retained in the public archive and states that drafts are only removed in unusual circumstances.  However, before you send a request to the IESG, it is probably worth pointing out that an author deciding that they now wish to unpublish an internet draft is unlikely to qualify ???as unusual circumstances???.

Was unpublishing previously requested and rejected ?

Are there example (drafts) for which this process was used  (whether for unpublishing requests or else) ?  Curious about actual instances of "unusual circumstances", but also for "rejected unusual circumstances". 

Primarily wondering what the boundary of "unusual curcumstances" is because that term is not a definition of a boundary but the definition of "arbitrary wiggle room" for the IESG. Which is fine as long as we did not have to test the boundary repeatedly. If there is more experience, the definition should be clearer.

Aka: I am sure i could easily create the situation by posting a draft with offensive racial slurs, promoting terrorist organiations, leaking US military secrets or the like. I am sure IESG would quickly decide to make sure this is not only removed from datatracker, but also tools (wasn't sure if the URL language implied tools a well...).

In a case like Khaled, if he would appeal to IESG, and given how the thread here shows a lot more interest of the community to regurgitate operating principles instead of suggesting that the IESG could simply be forthcoming to a severely disgruntled contributor (whether or not it makes sense), i think that is an interesting case of the boundary where the rules don't make it clear to me what th outcome would or should be.

Personally, i think IESG should consider removing the drafts if so requested, putting respect for a community member before operating principles, but of course also weighting respect for the rest of the community:

Technically, the key reason for not removing the drafts to me is that only because Khaled was posting the drafts to the IETF did he get cycles from the IETF community that was expressed through many public and (from what i
read) also private emails. And it could be seen as a disrespect to those that did spend cycles on reading those drafts and providing feedback to remove the drafts. Especially given how the public exchanges about the draft are archived and those archives would not be comprehensible if the references documents where removed.

Finally: I think it is a sad showing of the IETF community culture to see that there is not a lot of "we would severely ask you to reconsider requesting IESG to remove your drafts, but if you decide to do so, we will support you if asked by IETF about it". But i am herey saying so, even though i think i have very little standing because i think i only engaged into discussions with Khaled once or twice on a list about his work.

Cheers
    Toerless

> I suggest that you either just let the drafts expire, of publish a tombstone draft as previously suggested by Ted.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Rob
> 
> 
> From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Khaled Omar
> Sent: 20 October 2020 19:47
> To: Timothy Mcsweeney <[e-mail]>; Donald Eastlake 
> <[e-mail]>; Jay Daley <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Enough is Enough.
> 
> 
> >> it is important that the IETF (through the IETF Trust) own
>    the copyright in documents that are published as RFCs (other than
>    Informational RFCs and RFCs that are submitted as RFC Editor
>    Contributions).
> 
> This is about RFCs not individual submitted drafts, I still have the right as the only author of all drafts to ask for the deletion, where is the issue?
> 
> Khaled Omar
> 
> From: Timothy Mcsweeney 
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:33 PM
> To: Khaled Omar 
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Jay Daley 
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: Enough is Enough.
> 
> Read BPC 78 section 4 <" 
> data-mce-href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78#section-4>">https://t
> ools.ietf.org/html/bcp78#section-4><https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78#
> section-4>
> 
> That will cause you to click over to <" 
> data-mce-href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4844>">https://tools.iet
> f.org/html/rfc4844><https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4844>
> 
> Inside RFC4844 try to locate the stream listed on your drafts.  Let us know what you find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/20/2020 2:20 PM Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Why no one is answering his question ???..
> 
> Khaled Omar
> 
> From: Timothy Mcsweeney 
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:12 PM
> To: Khaled Omar 
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Jay Daley 
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: Enough is Enough.
> 
> Personally, I can't think of any reason to keep the drafts laying around unless there is an intent to use some of its content down the road.  Is that the intent?
> 
> 
> On 10/20/2020 1:57 PM Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Donald,
> 
> >> In my opinion, these drafts should not and will not be deleted. They will time out six months after posting and be removed from the active directory.
> 
> As they are submitted by the IETF, they can be removed by the IETF, it doesn't make any sense to be inactive or the six period ended and still saved at the IETF, I should end that from the roots, please take an action at least in removing the drafts.
> 
> Jay, I think that you are now the responsible person as said by Tim, please delete them ALL, easy thing.
> 
> Khaled Omar
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 7:49 PM
> To: Khaled Omar 
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Jay Daley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Enough is Enough.
> 
> Khaled,
> 
> You should give the file names if you submit a request related to drafts particularly as it seems that these drafts, except draft-omar-ipv10-12, do not follow the convention of including your name as the second token.
> 
> Assuming the other drafts have the same copyright and license notice as draft-omar-ipv10-12, you have granted copyright in these drafts jointly to the IETF Trust and yourself. The IETF Trust licenses IETF participants as in https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/IETF-TLP-5.pdf particularly Section 3.
> 
> In my opinion, these drafts should not and will not be deleted. They will time out six months after posting and be removed from the active directory.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [phone] (cell)
> 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA 
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 1:15 PM Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> Hi Jay,
> >
> >
> Could you please do the following request?
> >
> >
> Deleting these IDs completely from the IETF repository:
> >
> >
> 1) Internet Protocol version 10 (IPv10).
> 2) IPmix.
> 3) KHALED Routing Protocol (KRP).
> 4) Regional Routing Protocol (RRP).
> 5) Numbering Exchange Protocol (NEP).
> 6) Satellite Internet (SI).
> 7) ASN Label Switching Protocol (ALSP).
> >
> >
> Thanks in advance.
> >
> >
> Khaled Omar
> >
> >
> From: Timothy Mcsweeney 
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 7:10 PM
> To: Khaled Omar 
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: 
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Enough is Enough.
> >
> >
> I would ask an IESG member. And I think Jay Daley offered up [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on a different thread.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> On 10/20/2020 1:00 PM Khaled Omar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Dear IETFers,
> >
> >
> I hope this is my last e-mail with the IETF and I???m not feeling coward to repeat my first request regarding deleting my drafts from the IETF repository.
> >
> >
> Can anyone tell me whom is the responsible person for deleting drafts from the IETF?
> >
> >
> P.S. I don???t want to find any BCP or whatever that mention that the original author of the draft has not the right to ask for deleting his drafts as this doesn???t make any sense.
> >
> >
> I wish you good luck after the deletion and the ideas not being used by the IETF as they have no benefits as many claims.
> >
> >
> Sorry for any disturbance.
> >
> >
> Regards,
> >
> >
> Khaled Omar
> >
> >
> >

--
---
[e-mail]