This not what I meant, I mean that my drafts didn't get space inside the corresponding wg, I tried to contact the area directors and chairs but almost nothing received, drafts are only submitted to the ietf, and if they will be presented at any meeting, that would be the maximum thing happened. Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 6:35 PM To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: ietf <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Protecting Copyright. >The issue is that WG chairs are not welcoming my drafts and they act like this ID is not related to my work area ☺ and you find someone copied and applied without a notice. Are you expecting the WG chairs to be aware if some organization outside of IETF is using your idea without notice (or even using your idea *with* a notice)???? Regards, Christer From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:49 PM To: eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx Cc: ietf <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Protecting Copyright. Hello Khaled, This happens in IETF when the WG chair is not engaging the work with wg participants. IMO the WG chair is the one to communicate with and to check with or the AD. Overall it is healthy to share ideas/comments and to acknowledge them. My comments below [AB], From: ietf mailto:<ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Khaled Omar Sent: 28 April 2020 16:35 To: mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Protecting Copyright. >Hi all, >I would like to ask why ideas submitted into ietf drafts are applied without a notice to the draft authors ?!!! [AB] that should not happen, >Before NEP ID, there was no IGP uses a composite metric such as NEP uses, and now I can see that cisco added a third factor to its eigrp metric calculation (they call it K6) and became as NEP ID. [AB] I did not understand, however, ideas can be used but always must be acknowledged, but still most ietf culture still leave acknowledgement to authors only and not the WG. That IMHO is wrong and hopefully the culture changes to be more open to all and more social. >The funny thing is that during NEP presentation at the ietf meeting someone from cisco asked "what are the benefits to add this factor to the metric", and then you see this factor added to their IGP. >Actually, I received no notice from cisco before applying such thing to their IGP. >Can someone tells me what this means or what to call this? [AB] May call it bad situation or bad working-groupings. Some IETF WG are having groups inside the main WG, which is not healthy. There is a possibility of using the idea without copying, because may be no direct input to the draft or WG. I once complained about authors not acknowledging WG participants influenced a change to draft, and I still think it is not right to use reviewer comments without acknowledging. Best Regards AB
