Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt> (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

AB,

This may surprise you, but not everyone cares what you think.

John

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 8, 2013, at 1:51 AM, "Abdussalam Baryun" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Routing Area AD,
> 
> I had many comments/issues regarding your area always addressed to you
> and  including this issue which I hope my all comments (past/present)
> will help to make better practice/procedural progresses in this IETF
> Area.
> I am sorry also to any one receiving this email but I send it only to
> an AD, IETF, and IESG. This is not noise but a signal to IETF to
> progress, if you think it is noise please explain, and please notice
> that all particpants have rights under the IETF procedures not only
> managements. My reply below and if you want to continue discussing on
> any other list please inform me, but if you reply copying any list, I
> will have to do the same because you are part of management and I am
> not.
> 
> On 6/6/13, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Sorry to everyone for the noise this thread is creating.
> 
> This thread containing my messages never creates noise, I beleive you
> may ne refering to your messages only as noise. Please note that I
> don't accept this describtion, I think that community messages
> regarding any I-D is never noise even if the IETF management could not
> handle the volume. I RECOMMEND any receiver that has noise in it to
> fix its problem without blaming transmitters.
> 
>> Multiple questions that I have to answer.
> 
> ok, that is why this list is discussing list for ietf progress,
> 
>> 
>>>> It falls to me to make a call on this issue before the document moves
>>>> on.
>>>> 
>>>> Abdussalam has complained that he has not been acknowledged and has
>>>> objected to the current text in section 8.
>>>> The authors have responded on the MANET list
>>>> 
>>>>> We believe that only comments that lead to significant improvements of
>>>>> the draft deserve a listing in the acknowledgment section, and we have
>>>>> therefore not modified the section.
>>> 
>>> What was the WG decision?
>> 
>> Are you asking whether there was an explicit consensus call within the
>> working
>> group on whether or not you should be acknowledged in this document?
> 
> I think the question is clear, and is easy to answer. The answer is,
> there was no decision made by the WG or the community regarding my
> request of adding a name in the ack section. You send me back a
> question saying explicit consensus, it is simpler to make my question
> asking of notification of such reaction from management, which was not
> either established. I did not get a message saying that any kind of
> consensus was established privately/publicly on any IETF lists (please
> ask the WG chair because I am sure I did not received any answer for
> my request by the WG/community).
> 
>> There was no such call in the working group or on the IETF list.
> 
> Thanks for the answer, so I understand that the editors/management did
> not answer my request (one person from the community), just because
> they or AD did not beleive in my concerns without consulting the WG in
> any way.
> 
>> 
>>> Why any contribution that influnces the I-D ideas is not acknowledged?
>>> IMO, if a technical-idea within the I-D was discovered wrong by a
>>> participant, or a new technical-idea added to I-D from an input, then
>>> the I-D should be acknowledged.
>> 
>> This opinion does not apply to your comments on this document. You did not
>> discover a wrong technical-idea. Your comments did not lead directly to the
>> addition of any new technical-idea.
> 
> The question of I-D managers not acknowledging such
> input/contribution, was not answered if you agree to acknowledge
> discovering an error or adding a new idea. Regarding the opinion, do
> you agree with the opinion first? Regarding the error and missing
> information, I did discover error in the document and did found
> missing definitions if this informational I-D (after my contribution
> there was changes made to the document, please notice that)
>> 
>>>> I have reviewed the email threads on the MANET mailing list and do not
>>>> consider that Abdussalam made contributions to the text of the
>>>> document.
>>> 
>>> Didn't that person make review and discovered errors?
>> 
>> "That person" is you.
> 
> Yes but I said that because this message it not me defending me, it is
> me defending future wrong reaction of ignoring to acknowledge the
> persons in the community. If any I-D authors are best knowledgeable
> people in a special field they should not try to seek to
> dis-acknowledge the community efforts that changed few I-D ideas (even
> if the community person is not expert, that does not mean that authors
> have right to exclude contributors).
> 
>> Yes, you made a review. Reviewing a document is not something authors
>> acknowledge in the IETF or (AFAIK) in academic journals.
> 
> I disagree with your opinion, but do you think your opinion is in the
> IETF procedure, if yes please provide me with that procedure of not
> acknowledgement. I respect your opinion but it is wrong because in one
> sense yes documents in the world don't acknowledge all reviews
> (usually when they don't request it), one the other hand the world
> documents do acknowledge reviews when the document owner calls for
> review. Please note that this I-D did request/call for review and I
> was the only reveiwer in the WGLC, and my review made the authors
> change some ideas.
> 
>> No, I don't think you discovered errors of any significance.
> 
> My comments and discussions are in the MANET WG. The errors were; 1)
> not explaining the word *attack* in I-D version 2 and/or referencing
> explainations. 2) wrong explaination of physical communication in
> MANET.
> Both ideas ware changed please see the two versions of I-D 2 and 3.
> 
> Example error idea in the I-D was:
> [I-D wrong idea] As wireless radio waves can be captured as well as transmitted
> by any wireless device within radio range.
> [my discovery contribution]
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15250.html
> 
>> 
>> Caveating my answers below as describing a contribution to a document (not
>> a
>> contribution in the wider IETF sense)
> 
> An IETF I-D contribution is a contribution (don't care about the
> editors' beleive of kind of contributions), small, large, substantial,
> non-substantial, minor, major, from-expert, not-from-expert,
> from-popular, from-non-popular, from-f2f-participant,
> from-remote-participant, etc.
>> 
>>> Why don't you consider discovering an error as a contribution?
>> 
>> I would personally consider discovering a major error as something I would
>> acknowledge it in a document I was editing.
> 
> You use word major as if we know what it means. Something minor to you
> may be major to someone else don't you think. If your documents if for
> experts please mention that in you documents, please know your
> audiance/readers. I understand that IETF documents are for ALL the
> Internet Community on EARTH. Therefore, the word major/minor is
> relative to the reader not writer.
> 
>> I would personally consider discovering multiple minor errors as something
>> I
>> would acknowledge it in a document I was editing.
> 
> Again you say you, I want IETF opinion not editors, I want WG
> decisions not your decisions, however, I already waiting for the IESG
> decisions on this matter, and I understand that your decision is a one
> part of that but not full/final. One error discovery or multiple, both
> are contributions and are needed. In our volunteering work if the
> work/I-D/RFC has many mistakes we don't blame the editors but the
> community, but if the work had no mistake we give all credit to
> authors, IMHO, we always should refer to the community in good or bad
> outcomes of IETF documents. Therefore acknowledging the parts of
> community is important.
>> 
>> However, there is no requirement for editors to act in that way.
> 
> No, editors are required to edit/act what the community is seeking,
> why are they called editors for the WG? the authority is for the WG
> not editors.
> 
>> Furthermore,
>> you do not fit into these categories for this document.
> 
> I do fit, I think you should not decide now, let it to be done through
> IETF procedure.
> 
>> 
>>> Why don't you consider providing new ideas a contribution?
>> 
>> I would consider providing major ideas as something I would acknowledge it
>> in a
>> document I was editing.
>> I would consider providing smaller ideas through text for inclusion in the
>> document as something I would acknowledge it in a document I was editing.
>> You do not fit into these categories for this document.
> 
> I think I do fit from IETF point of view (maybe not yours). I gave my
> discovery of error, and if the editors want text I will give them, it
> is a discussion issue between both sides in a WG. Text is not much
> important like the idea, the idea is the most important thing in any
> organisation. English texting can be another contribution, or proof
> readings, but the main contribution is the idea that was changed.
> 
>> 
>>> What is your definition to contribution?
>> 
>> As above, or written text that was included or modified for inclusion in a
>> document and represents a material or substantial part of the document.
> 
> the idea is more important than text, if changed sentence idea we
> SHOULD acknowledge, if changed sentance text without changing idea we
> do not have to acknowledge. So text changing/adding without new-idea
> or English correction is not acknowledged im my opinion.
> 
>> 
>>>> I also believe that the comments he made did not advance the
>>>> content of the document.
>>> 
>>> So I understand that you need to have advance the content then you
>>> acknowledge.
>>> 
>>>> Furthermore, per multiple references (such as RFC 2026) the
>>>> Acknowledgements section is used to "properly acknowledge
>>>> major contributors.
>>> 
>>> I am trying to find that condition of *major contribution*,
>> 
>> I would borrow from 2026 and 5378 to say a material or substantial
>> contribution
>> to the document.
>> 
>> And, before you ask, no-one is going to write down a rule that says 139
>> characters is not substantial, but 140 is.
>> 
>> This is one of the places where a principal of reasonableness applies. I
>> would
>> know a major contribution if I saw one. I did not see one from you in this
>> case.
> 
> I will wait for the IESG decision on that. Major or minor is relative
> to the readers not to the writers. You have big experience but that
> does not mean you should exclude any minor contribution, I hope you
> reconsider that. Some experts don't like to show that non-popular
> found their mistakes, but Why thoes experts came to use IETF service
> which calls-reviews to all levels of experties to contribute to the
> document they author under IETF ownership?
> 
>> 
>>>> " Normal IETF business is to discuss not seek acknowledgement.
>>> 
>>> Ideas, Comments and reviews are included in the discuss for drafts
>>> progress. Seeking acknowledgement is not wrong within IETF, but please
>>> consider *not acknowledging reviews* within IETF documents is not IETF
>>> culture (we are not paid so why you thinking much of the business, the
>>> IETF business will only progress with acknowledging the volunteers).
>> 
>> If you want to change the way that the IETF participants (and document
>> authors/editors in particular) acknowledge reviews of their documents, then
>> please start a separate thread or, better still, write an I-D and see
>> whether
>> you can gain consensus.
> 
> I know that, but your advise comes back to you also, if you want to
> change the community expectations close to your opinions, I advise you
> to write an I-D that shows where to exclude participants to IETF
> documents.
> 
>> The last time you brought this topic up on this
>> list, I
>> do not recall seeing support.
> 
> Few did not support which were less than 15 persons, because IMO,
> there was no evidance of editors seeking to ignore reviewers
> contributions. Also, change is difficult any where in any
> organisation, so it will take time, IMO, people realise that
> participating-experts of IETF are the minority comapared to the
> community. I decided to complain any procedure error first and then
> write about what happend, so I will wait to see what is the IESG
> decision regarding the acknowledgement request. Please note that I
> have many procedural I-D in mind but it depends on the right time to
> submit it and get support.
> 
>> 
>> The only reason I can find for someone being able to demand that they are
>> named
>> in an Acknowledgements Section is for conformance to the IETF's Rights
>> policies.
> 
> My reason is that the truth SHOULD be reflected on the document. If
> you are editor I recommend you may say in the section thanks to x for
> his minor contribution if that satisfies your WG you work with, but
> not to ignore the truth. The truth is that IETF is calling for reviews
> from the community mostly not only from companies, and that your
> document changed an idea, so you ack.
> 
>> 
>>>> I do not propose to do an explicit consensus call on whether Abdussalam
>>>> should be named in this draft.
>>> 
>>> IMO, it should have been done in the WG.
>> 
>> Thank you for your opinion.
>> Are you asserting that consensus on the readiness of this document for a
>> publication request was incorrectly called by the working group chairs.
>> This
>> would be a serious allegation against the chairs and I would require
>> evidence
>> that there had been no consensus or that they had made an incorrect
>> assessment
>> of the consensus.
> 
> No, I accepted that the I-D goes to IESG only the complaint request of
> acknowledgement and the community reviews in IETF-LC. The wg chair
> mentioned my complaint in his report. I wait for the IESG decisions
> related to this I-D.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Abdussalam Baryun
> 
> A Participant working in IETF (subscribed)
> A Memebr of Internet Society (registered)
> 
>