++++++++++++++++ Possible Duplication +++++++++++++++ Hi Folks, IMHO, there are difference between discussion that MAY become argumentable and/or debatable. In a healthy-discussion you produce new ideas and educate yourself and others, but in unproductive-discussion you MAY block any progress and waste time. I define productive discussion as the posting/speaking of a point of view referenced by scientific facts or RFCs. I define debates as the posting/speaking of points without good-referencing or without good-reasoning. IMHO these debating inputs with no good reference will not provide progress in discussions, even though it may (in low probability) start indirectly an interest/input to a work-in-progress. For example, in one of the WG discussion on list, two members of WG have referenced a history-discussion and informed me to read them regarding some subject, I did do that but was *lost in translation*. I now think that the memebrs' advise was to a wrong direction. We SHOULD NOT refer in our current discussions to any other history-subjected-discussions (thoes discussion had no approve by WG consensus nor IESG review) in any WGs. Also referring to old discussions in the list result to waste time and MAY make current arguments long (i.e. long means more than 5 working days), or even makes the current argument unproductive.Old-discussions MAY be misleading/incorrect/invalid, even if they are helpful to gain some knowledge. We should *reference* mostly RFCs in our discussion, because RFCs are correct resource. The reason is because only RFCs are productions of healthy discussions and reviewed by experts in IESG. IMHO the IETF sees that RFCs are the correct-progress-reference. All Discussions are important for the IETF processes and to produce RFCs. Memebers of the WG should try to direct their discussions in the direction of progress without discouraging debate-input. Discussions that produce I-D that in the end submits <I-Ds are work-in-progress> are the most productive discussions. IMO it is accepted in discussions to reference scientific research papers, reviewed publications, industry experience, or RFCs, but please don’t accept in discussion the validity of ; a) a reference to a specific historic discussion that possibly were with wrong arguments, or b) a reference to unproductive discussions. In conclusion, we should try with the help of the WGs chairs to direct our discussions to become more productive, and within a reasonable time, and if we see any good-correct ideas, we SHOULD react quickly and input in a informational I-D and submit to WG for approval so we don't repeat refering to wrong-argumental-discussion. If you feel differently please advise, thanking you :) Best regards Abdussalam Baryun University of Glamorgan, UK. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ < In discussions one may be wrong, or may be right, but it does not matter if we work together as a group to progress and resolve all issues. IETF WGs are always right > ****************************************************************************************