IETF Logo Mail Archive

Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Thu, 24 October 2013 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1060111E8194 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OPvrtuO1G4DX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com (mail-pb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C79111E81B2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rp16so2832741pbb.14 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Dbcq1PTcDM0kECO14iR6m8cOETIHtX8hINWg+hkzmf8=; b=0KPNE+DmYL8iVzEW3DMKnsGmOeAXrhe0k+++imlfpfF4roAXd9XPON4wokBrq735PF xfHJy3S7udPWnVwfh2q9HaERwT1CTuYN27itkt4rivUQ9L0QMsPyqGgwCVgW77xl4k/J mnxiHIjzjRltryTJIFXh/P/tsZoq5bmuhYvo9KtgBr8DLmgVH/TQWTcYvg6/CtKJRie+ DdITu8JFSSmndOBN8Cb5lz3O1ygoRVMtdJjiW1OJThwfHTIviSPpiEaD7timGQcAJ8u/ S+RSy1W0VEhwucgABGzJ0ozNaFsKwKg/u5U9PXZ1X7Y5bHcg8Z+g1cIPAksolRTiKjIB fLrw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.148.97 with SMTP id tr1mr3905635pab.163.1382630619219; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.69.8.5 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5269209F.3060706@dcrocker.net>
References: <5269209F.3060706@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:03:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ882Rex1GOK6SiGVXrizjNusHtLSbcH4P5AqABb+Y2tXWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b6d9fa2ea0fa704e97ec698"
Cc: "draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:09:58 -0000

I don't agree with comparing our standards with other SDO standards within
our work, or even making our work process depend on other SDO products.
IETF RFC should try its best to have normative references that are RFCs not
dependent/government oriented. We may end up with a new name for our IETF,
as dependent IETF (DIETF).

AB

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email