IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Wed, 20 December 2017 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A48120227 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:56:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ehampqhPfhjQ for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:56:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 939CA126D3F for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:56:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from birdie (unknown [IPv6:2a01:5e0:29:ffff:ffc6:c393:cdb9:8db1]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FC3064223 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 07:56:13 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1513752973; bh=EtZRgpiEddbNYIXjJhT12yeA9u9NHXmCinzf/uXLoH0=; h=From:To:Date; b=qUpWIc7S7Hkwbyx8fn93XtEokjDV31KRpiZBwHiwujiQBieM8OgwwdAqY4Lob+g8h xOQqhiSOETJkqhU1T6QXyD0WDqWQTCQifWZPgLRxe/Y1HrEHQT4ZVOGdh/xoFlqwfI cUakdNO6imh3FpG0rYZjk6H7N4R+mZP3zlpAlOSQ=
Message-ID: <1513752973.10794.22.camel@nic.cz>
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: rtgwg@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 07:56:13 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20171219210440.czop6xcuyvispknc@nic.fr>
References: <AM4PR0401MB2241817BD0EEEE79B32C8CD2BD0F0@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20171219210440.czop6xcuyvispknc@nic.fr>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/02d3Dtvb3w0kZnTixvejxSFRBbM>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 06:56:18 -0000

On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 22:04 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:46:29PM +0000,
>  Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com> wrote 
>  a message of 14 lines which said:
> 
> > I noticed that the IETF participants gives only negative comments
> > regarding the submitted IDs, that is good in some cases if it is
> > true, but to ignore the positive side
> 
> Calvin Coolidge, a former US president, apparently said that the
> important job in the governement was not to promote good bills, but to
> kill bad ones. There are already many protocols and many RFC. Adding
> more is not a goal in itself.
> 
> > It's been long time on the rtgwg mailing list and didn't have any
> > technical discussion or comments for KRP and NEP or even an official
> > review.
> 
> The problem at the IETF is that most people are too polite to explain
> to you the truth. So, let me try: your proposals are worthless and do
> not deserve a serious discussion. Yes, I'm harsh, but this is because
> many persons already kindly explained the problem to you, and you
> apparently don't listen. So, I have to retry harder.

You didn't expect it would help, did you? :-) One could sit back, observe this
and have fun, but it is worth considering that such proposals may have unwelcome
side effects.

In September, a popular Czech online journal published a short article starting
with a sentence like "The new IPv10 protocol is intended to solve the problems
of IPv4 and still little-used IPv6." Quite naturally, the discussion exploded with reactions like "Is the IETF kidding us?", "How could the IETF do something so stupid?" A few people including myself tried to explain that an individual draft really means nothing but apparently general technological public gives the IETF documents more weight than they sometimes deserve.

Perhaps some kind of elementary sanity filter on individual drafts would be
useful.

Lada

> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID:

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email