On 9/25/2012 11:15 AM, SM wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
At 10:19 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard
track document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or
not consider? The last call that you refered to was a WG not
independent.
There is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a Standards
Track document. An author can submit an I-D through the IETF Stream
if the author would like the I-D to be published on the Standards
Track. A WG can adopt such an I-D.
Regards,
-sm
P.S. I read your message [1] again. The first part seems to be about
"the reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG". The
last part seem to be about "a procedure to make participants follow to
convince WG and a procedure that WGs follow to accept with reason".
There was then an "AB" and three hyphens on the next line. It is
followed by "but is this Why not? I thought any I-D can be standard
track,". It was difficult for me to understand [2] the message.
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75097.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg60902.html
This is the problem we have - the IETF wants to be able to hold everyone
hostage and force people to work inside from its operating models today.
This is a fraud of the most obnoxious type - it is the GSO lying through
its teeth about how transparent it is IMHO... but these things will all
come out in the wash I think.
The IETF needs total transparency and a way to process alternative
standards so that it is not actively involved in anything dark and covert.
Todd
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5291 - Release Date: 09/25/12
--
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.