IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Tue, 19 December 2017 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 7DBD31270A0; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:04:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4vIkCcqn9Izi; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:04:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (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 A63BC120046; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:04:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 8E8FD282B01; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:04:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 885F5282B0B; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:04:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (unknown [10.1.50.11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817AD282B01; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:04:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E1AC642BE40; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:04:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 74C3A401D4; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:04:40 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:04:40 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, rtgwg <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
Message-ID: <20171219210440.czop6xcuyvispknc@nic.fr>
References: <AM4PR0401MB2241817BD0EEEE79B32C8CD2BD0F0@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0401MB2241817BD0EEEE79B32C8CD2BD0F0@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.2
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-3-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.005014, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2017.12.19.205416
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/9v9XSTu_UjUt5ZZUpvQzd3dxyt0>
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: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:04:44 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email