IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?

Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> Tue, 19 December 2017 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
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 66FB0128D2E; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:20:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_NONELEMENT_30_40=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outlook.com
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 KpO0PDEGoZr9; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:20:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR03-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092071014.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.71.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F23D41200FC; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:20:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=XU/Ns5H3n67hYT7VKIIO9ZbQ0pAo2NZOiVsei1vc1Ss=; b=GyG4CSfu/+Mm/ArJnY2Vq1zjin+SUoyCsMTrYpHBLFT9z0ej2wN0c4/cvOYbiYwzMh3dt+iOMllF18EEJmivtyvMud20pQ96tCFv5rCpaTsqqoLP/hW1w5YoSV+ungrk9QmWsq17pjSqtL+O19pEjbqXGmZeUdrYPZEhHxvaJLVh2ss7vQtqGvAF74FRtrlyDGRp55K7/HHZ83N47Htizt9t6/cl0+qFfioftQlSQnTFjyVO7fbfyMF0v9BySCZOaECSsR2oy0ECHPg0eO9N+Fzq57hF4CYEDVR/bsq0B8sAShOhPr8MCv5jSQkb6MwyDPXvUYrvyHZ63IQncHsr+g==
Received: from DB5EUR03FT015.eop-EUR03.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.20.52) by DB5EUR03HT196.eop-EUR03.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.20.188) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.20.302.6; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:20:53 +0000
Received: from AM5P190MB0434.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.152.20.51) by DB5EUR03FT015.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.20.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.20.302.6 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:20:53 +0000
Received: from AM5P190MB0434.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::9da6:f2cc:77f7:7b03]) by AM5P190MB0434.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::9da6:f2cc:77f7:7b03%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0323.018; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:20:53 +0000
From: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
CC: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, rtgwg <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
Thread-Topic: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
Thread-Index: AQHTeQpxL62Qror8QkyB91Q7VFl5xQ==
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:20:53 +0000
Message-ID: <AM5P190MB043455FB2C0FA1A8AF2915D9AE0F0@AM5P190MB0434.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <20171219210440.czop6xcuyvispknc@nic.fr>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:39E7755C90C7EDE3577E15B58BAFD62686C7E61F39518620FA4BBABE9E6D9EC2; UpperCasedChecksum:9CE22C395A5D5A0825509AE37D7BBC915696873A512D61443E0673F093A2C796; SizeAsReceived:7026; Count:46
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [UTKcqSYHQD9HVCV2PN3KwCWGSHKrMtSK]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB5EUR03HT196; 6:LtqBuERGRk7eVr1y5+WPIMqjxHR1frVIz3tqeYS1ScNBPi2oNIk6d+1NphofXBaDP4WwSKmjEbACKdzksbciGB9eMhYn3PoKdKrTl6AbwIxyUVtc8PrCLvlICDMpx2sExhkziPj4rmg+biNQ9uwM+Dg4oKFBOy0LZh7l4ZgeIL71sm+Bl/bN1Fg3N7355+uakyU32dtmPsJ8eSwW90Gzc3UaO12us8Yjl9M5KmwHDlVGZn/iKUjGxSR3qmT9BC74OsoJ1byizl2mMer/ZyG9UKBDtEimhjjWapRBr4v7NIrh51cWx3Oxv8ZwT0sVefkpyEGH/jJyxCHbhscR9SF6bHtlMNguEZ+kq5jX2kWuKxQ=; 5:dd+c5TngT714XaM829N0X0BZKZv71lbsr5DZynMd/D95HWDS4l1Z8kzMKDRD4XkprVqNaqwIWOesAyNLdVwv4vLSZRy2N7sGEymjnhV4rn2aFCjJ8OVIBxSPqHWYnhtBj6FgJU924m4lACWvTlos1vrBqPhCwczCk/Uq3wlSvQk=; 24:ZOymX/sFCxGMfyMV5zobA0VjCYApa6Q78whhf8FNbMz4u9LL2WYwLxXGvJx5F8OUpmySYJDTihO+WANdRyVqKJV++oRhvu0jBXL5jQ6Sylk=; 7:WNGULEcqYGiBZrv14hE5sEym+9TlPjK9rmm+lzYvPvWpSscENEFKBZVyGXqmhER6zib0n3j5Hyd+m6aO4X1/IwxFa6/LiFJ/bMvV2BgqKK/dBcup0wdm78gmgiXeY8ttY6U+tyDOh1w4P6dEKKVaeJIYZVhaUih1xXEdsS7p8EdWQePu162QdDUGhmrmwB3pkIA51lxxiE8C1N8iJ67ltaHeiWK9SxQwNm5JQ6x4Clfx4hPrOXL5+ursAAR4GF3P
x-incomingheadercount: 46
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031324274)(2017031323274)(2017031322404)(1601125374)(1603101448)(1701031045); SRVR:DB5EUR03HT196;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB5EUR03HT196:
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1f039229-ec74-49fb-5ec0-08d54726621b
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(444000031); SRVR:DB5EUR03HT196; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000803101)(100110400095); SRVR:DB5EUR03HT196;
x-forefront-prvs: 052670E5A4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98901004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:DB5EUR03HT196; H:AM5P190MB0434.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM5P190MB043455FB2C0FA1A8AF2915D9AE0F0AM5P190MB0434EURP_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1f039229-ec74-49fb-5ec0-08d54726621b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Dec 2017 21:20:53.0427 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB5EUR03HT196
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/FbOT9TCwloEwGUXlQ4rJSY5AhEM>
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 21:20:57 -0000

> 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.

Which proposals you are talking about? All? for some time some people felt not comfortable with IPv10 and the discussion has been stopped, but with KRP and NEP I received almost nothing thats why I'm asking for decisions regarding the discussion.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer
To: Khaled Omar
CC: ietf ,rtgwg


On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:46:29PM +0000,
Khaled Omar 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