IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Thu, 21 December 2017 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.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 3751E12D941; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:58:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 Z5ycObFf0DUI; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:58:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x231.google.com (mail-ua0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6149612D779; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:58:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x231.google.com with SMTP id n9so9414259ual.13; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:58:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=1ECXBVls3oj41+TU9geW5/5M9hV0Gzag/NMlGGL2VC0=; b=GydxCSmPNk8hVIO1gl7zWU7WPI6+h50eT5Gyk3u0sKQlgoTWLRNhpPY94Osz3HmdXH emkSab9ssnpj1Gv1tOom8ISfyIWwcBn8MYR3QOIhaum2m836f2x+ITvyV9NbDpmCAD7s GJQwaa15gzQdAFxiHXEFY57823xrISdVT/k+1PLzBEnR0n645UM1XyTwlRQNyvidKzin r5xHEOeW7q6MCMfSTJj7sBDZVaM+QRFgRfPrNR7ocqkmlz5FvtvNI4gW3bPh/jGtqgcX gr2my5mUhTE4n8ZIP2DSIzwe64YyTxnPhWW2PRj/byFR5FOvixK5cROUrVlRm5VLR2Rk mHgA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1ECXBVls3oj41+TU9geW5/5M9hV0Gzag/NMlGGL2VC0=; b=EN9cdDGwqbBHSXo3BnA4JrVi2ACS0vsPINsZeSWe5JaU70ekENTP0Z0rR7pJ0njb7d WUyHWHbJ6xgnf6DcyZsY0PJ3iXbMn2T4ZDARPcxbU5lUbxNvEConFZgRbqDBIwdKugrm BcAns7/Q9NxcwtxgBqfT/3Tl0XO2kkwRIiOS8C0dbo0bllf8y5nYRwiT/XoBzMiPhkyB h0iyCxVg4w0o/vBHzYEme0YlDbI98/7jOsM6j6H9qUTaXM1pKtUwy2fHJSgBv3QpBiA+ jLELI6ecXbVe9Y/kbPISSLI/tj/rDT4dKKMk2jCTwvI0ibIvo1Ee/d0AM7EQjE2ro8FU 0U9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLG3zpR9TM0F3H2YMfI6I7zufbhjPo5q1bYqcUQPO1bB5jP7iMG gvg6GcY/ZwZB8lbHHh+kP/juI2Cs/94z/OfeudI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBoupHS5zfgN+DOUiZU4lyggVfRJtFb9reLs+hoN3wvt0wGzPCYHYzn9D1ZXAYr8VzZjOonYIfxFzcYjvwPytmiY=
X-Received: by 10.159.61.90 with SMTP id m26mr11793912uai.40.1513875528184; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:58:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.176.80.139 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:58:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0401MB2241F4CD1D8D6C54735D93D9BD0D0@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM4PR0401MB2241817BD0EEEE79B32C8CD2BD0F0@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <51b495e6-ee1d-4224-6c7c-dec0f8248cc9@cisco.com> <D6601576.27F3B%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233AA98562@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <AM4PR0401MB22414952845433B8D59CCC90BD0C0@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233AA98825@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <60324BD8-E91D-49C7-9AE6-C6E22C836AC8@fugue.com> <AM5P190MB0434A92C65FE8657EB533315AE0D0@AM5P190MB0434.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAKW6Ri4oBtE7CsBNuDkd=pCM-ztHfo5xdGNG300e=RiJ2fODOg@mail.gmail.com> <1F3AC01AA49DD3BE543CCB9E@PSB> <CAL9jLaaVhZpTkoPCWm9RnJXgebXgC1yMMUAXz78KPi5EuPh7cw@mail.gmail.com> <AM4PR0401MB2241F4CD1D8D6C54735D93D9BD0D0@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:58:47 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4igj2maeqfs7NJH6k7RcIJA8Xes
Message-ID: <CAL9jLab3Vop89uqMxPdU2wrS+kLf3_a38NFid1Nj3Ht5KfwV5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, rtgwg <rtgwg@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e08e4d8dd1778370560dc9d30"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/J-7L9EvGB7h5qKYJsXEoKtT_7nY>
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: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:58:52 -0000

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > Can we just move the discussion(s) there? :)
>
>
>
> I wish to go discuss there, but where there.
>
>
>
The IRTF - The Internet Research Task Force
  mailto: irtf-discuss@irtf.org

IDR:
   mailto: idr@ietf.org

routing-discussion
  mailto: routing-discussion@ietf.org

rtgwg (you already copied them, just move there)

>
>
>
>
> *From:* rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Christopher
> Morrow
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 21, 2017 6:39 PM
> *To:* John C Klensin
> *Cc:* rtgwg; Khaled Omar; ietf
> *Subject:* Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
>
>
>
> The actual problem here is that the draft discussion's don't actually
> belong on the IETF@ list though... They belong in their respective WG
> lists, or perhaps on the IRTF list.
>
>
>
> Can we just move the discussion(s) there? :)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:56 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> May I suggest that we wind this discussion thread down.
>
> Whether correct or not, analyses of Khaled's character are
> probably not helpful and repetitive versions of them are less
> so.  The S/N ratio on the IETF list is never wonderful and this
> thread should not contribute to making it worse.
>
> At least IMO, Khaled has been given a number of quite
> constructive suggestions (both on-list and off) about how to
> proceed if he wants to do so.   Almost all of them include
> focusing on a problem statement and/or a careful and reflect
> literature review and analysis, but, if he wants to make
> progress, he needs to understand the details of those
> suggestions.
>
> Let's give him time to do that and see what, in the form of a
> draft focused on those topics, he comes up with and, in the
> process, try to reserve judgment about intentions, quality of
> listening, etc.
>
> best,
>     john
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email