--On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 16:50 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I > would prefer groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but > also we need to know the reason why some individuals fail to > convince an IETF WG. It is important that individuals get to > make input to new standards not only companies. >... > Therefore, there SHOULD be a procedure to make participants > follow to convince WG and a procedure that WGs follow to > accept with reason, not just blocking excellent I-D because > they group think it is bad with no reason or knowledgable > discussion. If there is no procedure then individuals or other > organisations will look for another way to standards their > work. It seems to me that the above has nothing to do with the topic of removing I-Ds from the archive. As far as I know, the number of I-Ds that have been taken down --or even expired early without recourse-- in the history of the IETF because someone didn't like the ideas has been zero. More important, someone who believes that a WG unreasonably rejected a useful idea or who wishes to see the reasons for WG decisions documented has several ways to accomplish that. An Informational discussion could be submitted as an individual submission to the IESG or as an independent submission to the ISE. My experience and observation is that such analyses or critiques are almost always published as RFCs --the really permanent, archival, form around here-- if they are thoughtful and well-reasoned. I've seen rants rejected for RFC publication, but that is because they are unsupported rants, not because they disagree with some community conclusion. john p.s. As someone who has spent far more of my IETF existence as an individual rather than as someone supported by, much less controlled by, a company, I see company domination as a risk but not one that has been an actual problem in any but a very small number of specific topics/areas.