Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Wed, 26 September 2012 07:52 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8-K71TT2UuufyTLy-vgTjnnNqxo3X-_xbeoFRRYK9mH1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADnDZ8-K71TT2UuufyTLy-vgTjnnNqxo3X-_xbeoFRRYK9mH1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:52:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8-FCKnpVhVRjVnOSfr-iA9MSgvXuTJvHk4MUxhNKCnW2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: dwm@xpasc.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Precedence: list

Hi Dave, and All,

The beauty of the IETF is that it includes all Internet USERS
(i.e.people or organisations) around the world, no one should use it
in their interest, it should progress in the Internet
Society/Community interest following the *open* engineering knowledge
and practice. Engineers in IETF cannot disagree covering their reason
or reference they SHOULD be open. Comments in line below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The IETF needs total transparency and a way to process alternative
>> standards
>> so that it is not actively involved in anything dark and covert.
>
> That makes no sense ... something can't be an IETF standard if it doesn't
> get created and adopted using The IETF's processes. The word 'standard'
> implies the approval of some organization/standards body. The independant
> stream does allow publishing of alternatives to IETF Standards, but that
> doesn't make tham alternative standards. For that some other recognized
> group needs to declare it a standard and then it will be An XYZ Group
> Standard, not an IETF Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that the best practice is standards through WGs, because
*knowledge* is the core reason for the GROUP, not *politics*. IMHO,
the best practice is continue *open-discussions* with engineering and
technical knowledge to give progress to WGs, but if some participants
don't want to accept to discuss (by ignoring input) or don't want to
listen to technical/research reasons in IETF documents or  in
publications out IETF, how can the WG progress? Still thoes
participant MAY continue disagree (without discussing why) when
calling for group consensus, what will be the best practice?, will it
be that the submitter has to stop even if his/her has better arguments
in terms of engineering.

Some may fail to convice an IETF WG just because some active
participants reply that they think it is bad, without replying
*reasonably* to discussions. When I read the IETF procedure, I see
that it makes decisions at the *WG-consensus* (with no relation to
discussions and arguments) which I think not enough for progress in
the eyes of IETF mission statement.

Suggest: that if any participant disagree in I-D adoption in a WG,
then he/she take a DISCUSS position (similar to IESG memebrs process,
cannot just disagree), which they MUST have to take and reply to
messages including their good reasons for their positions (you don't
reply this idea/I-D is BAD). Any participant (submitter or who
disagrees with adoption) SHOULD have an engineering reference(s) for
such input.

If I am mistaken please advise, because I need to discuss to
understand, so we can help together make IETF better for the world
users.

Best Regards
Abdussalam Baryun
++++++++++++++++
The mission of the Internet Engineering Task Force is to make the
Internet work better by producing high-quality and relevant technical
documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the
Internet. See http://www.ietf.org.

Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG Abdussalam Baryun
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG Abdussalam Baryun
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG Rémi Després