Re: Discussions in IETF WGs

Abdussalam Baryun <> Tue, 12 June 2012 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7291821F8670 for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id siFaBM2buEQV for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCE521F866C for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so3236166vcq.31 for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=P4xD3BcGwpIQ+q0xDwA+Lisz9IvAl21f3OJFAJFkUzI=; b=H3JHF2eKSHyqxXmKJ02zvvLtQu1GgcPNTlFpFkQE1VVSrMK3pA56aMeOjrkBv43myn ZMFFlxFm0EMt3R5IgBrwHqOb7gsbBGwDesmuv+QWvMGG6oiQxVxxSWil1743dZpUckNW ugpEsubDYrw4rIDFWnfYaet/CNGToTA7D+cE/Gjr/5NdpF/Bk8QIKQu4lXlxgzys9sTk qRO12edcMZVYfZuimJ2m6zeNWuveH5+evYvv183rF/R+sc+jsov1R6Udd+NU4OwvPJei 9eBCUk2+Xlm9uMVcm6D3oHAl/jgdcQU/2aYgRPOJy0G959OxCkIRYxP7EFOW1i6dfKP2 NW9Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id x17mr11913057vds.117.1339499367329; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:09:26 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Discussions in IETF WGs
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:07:10 -0700
Cc: ietf <>
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:09:29 -0000

Hi Martin,

I thank you for your help and comments, it will help me for future.

comments in line:

On 6/11/12, Martin Rex <> wrote:
> There is no substiantial difference between old discussions and recent
> discussions.  Referencing an argument from an earlier discussion rather
> than repeating it is often an improvement with a significant potential to
> actually save time, and zero risk to waste time (compared to repeating
> the exact same previous arguments in a new message).

I agree with you, but only if the reference was pointed by date or
subject, so the all readers can follow the current discussion and
reference. also if the it was copied from the history (if short
discussion) forward to the current it will be useful, but overall
mentioning the subject/date of discussion is important.

>> We should *reference* mostly RFCs in our discussion, because RFCs are
>> correct resource.
> If RFCs were correct, we would neither need an Errata process, nor
> maturity levels, nor -bis documents.
> "RFCs are correct" is a bold and dangerous presumption.  Many RFCs
> are vague or even ambigous, and they may contain numerous implications
> that are non-obvious to a number of readers, and sometimes non-obvious
> to implementors and document authors).

I just mentioned that to compare RFC with discussion list. In your
refering if the RFC maybe vague and it is the product of the
discussions, so what about the discussion as a reference.

> All that can be said about standard track RFCs, is that they're the result
> of the IETF consensus process.  And the primary focus of the IETF consensus
> process is to resolve dissent (technical or procedural objections),
> _not_ correctness.  Some level of confidence about correctness can be
> obtained
> by creating independent implementations and demonstrate that they interop
> on the implemented features, but results are mixed, and most interop
> tests are lacking (test only a fraction of the features and only a fraction
> of the implementations in the installed base, and rarely "border cases"
> of unusual encodings).

IMO the RFC is result of both; WG discussions first, and then
consensus process. Regarding confidence issue I agree with you,

> -Martin

Best regards