On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:29:51 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Thierry Ernst wrote: >> Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>> In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a >>>> chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish >>>> their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the >>>> entire IETF community. >>>> >>> that's a really amazing statement. If I were participating in a WG >>> whose chair had that attitude, I'd be lobbying hard with the IESG for >>> another chair, as I'd suspect that the incumbent chair was >>> inappropriately hostile to introduction of new ideas within the WG. >>> >> >> Sorry, what "attitude" are you talking about here ? I was speaking >> about people who publish drafts but never say a word to anyone about >> their draft. What's the purpose ? >it used to be the case that merely publishing a draft would get some >attention for it. these days, that amount of attention is probably very >small. > >also, publishing an I-D might be useful for other reasons - e.g. to >establish prior art in case an idea or invention in the draft is ever >patented by someone else. OK, this may be a valid reason (though I doubt the IETF process of publishing I-D has been designed for such a reason). >and how do you know that the authors never say a word to anyone about >their draft? Well, I meant the WG doesn't know, but individuals who monitor i-d-announce@xxxxxxxx may. I just wonder why as an author I would take my time to write a draft which deal with protocol ABCD and not announce it on the ABCD mailing list. To me this is non sense, and my interpretation is that the intend is not to inform ABCD but to get the document published (with no reviews). I'm working in the academic world and I've seen many claims of documents published to the IETF, in some universities it could be perceived as an international publication or as being discussed within the IETF while it's not. >> If the purpose is to get new ideas >> through, I don't see how publishing a draft and non advertising is >> useful for the sender (it may for the reader). But more importantly, I >> don't see what you see as "hostile" in the observation above. >> >perhaps I misunderstood. I just don't want to further raise the barrier >for publishing I-Ds, because it's easier for the community to deal with >ideas published in that form than, say, on a web page or blog. This I agree, as for establishing prior art. Anyway, your comment would have been more productive if you had said so in the first place rather than accusing chairs of hostility (with no obvious reason). Thierry _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf