Khaled, I would normally send a note like this offlist but you have reacted badly to my doing that in the past. So, with the understanding that what follows is my personal opinion and that I'm speaking only for myself... When you first started suggesting ideas on the IETF list, and then when you started posted drafts, you were advised (by me and I think several others) that doing so involved sharing those ideas with the IETF for use (or not) by the IETF community as it saw fit -- that you were neither entitled to favorable consideration and adoption/standardization of those ideas nor to claim that they were exclusively yours and somehow un-submit or un-discuss them. This is really no different. I've often wished that the IETF would still follow the spirit of its original rules so that, when a draft "expired" it disappeared from any public repository under the IETF's control. But even that, just like "removing" a draft, would be, as others have pointed out, only symbolic: there are copies of the Internet Draft archive over which the IETF has no control. Similarly, for many years (at least a decade and probably much more) the IESG has tended to be very reluctant to take drafts down and remove them from the public archive, even when those drafts violate important guidelines about I-Ds and do so in way that is likely to create confusion. I don't agree with their reasoning, but it is clear that procedures adopted with community consensus allow them the discretion. It is your right to ask that the drafts be removed but I think you may want to think about what you are trying to accomplish: even if the IESG agrees, it will not cause documents to disappear from shadow archives that the IETF does not control, it will not mean the Secretariat would ignore or resist a court order to produce them from offline backups, it would not change the status of any copyright rights that the IETF Trust acquired when you posted the drafts, and it would not erase any IPR disclosures you filed nor your obligation to file any that you should have filed but did not. So, again, I wonder (as others have), what you expect to accomplish by this request even while I recognize that your reasons may have little effect on whether or not the request is granted. regards and best wishes, john --On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 19:30 +0000 Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So what are the benefits of freezing the water if no one is > able to drink. > > I think this time the IESG should approve the removal and not > to deny as the first time, it is a decision not rules. >...
