-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 3/25/13 9:35 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Monday, March 25, 2013 09:05 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre > <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 3/25/13 1:11 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: >>> AB, >>> >>> I've been following this first with increasing amusement, ... >>> not! >>> >>> A search on Baryun for IDs on the RFC Editors web page gives >>> the following result: >>> >>> "o Based on your search of [Baryun] in the All Fields field >>> zero matches were made." >>> >>> Time to terminate this "discussion"? >> >> Actually the following search ... >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=baryun&rfcs=on&a >> ctiveDrafts=on&oldDrafts=on&search_submit= >> >> ... yields ... >> >> draft-baryun-manet-technology-00 MANET Subnet Technologies >> Considerations 2012-07-30 Expired >> >> draft-baryun-manet-terminology-00 Terminology in Mobile Ad hoc >> Networks 2012-07-04 Expired >> >> draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00 Key Words of Conditional Language >> of Requirements Levels 2012-07-31 Expired >> >> draft-baryun-roll-nap-00 The Node Ability of Participation (NAP) >> 2012-08-01 Expired > > And, actually, this is more interesting. I don't follow MANET or > ROLL, but the 2119 update got some discussion on the IETF list. If > we think we have good ideas, most of us listen carefully to the > discussions and then generate -01 drafts that attempt to > incorporate the suggestions and deal with the objections. Here, > the documents are abandoned at -00. The author has moved on to > complaining about how badly the IETF and various of its WGs are > broken instead of trying to work with the community to refine the > ideas. > > That has nothing to do with whether the particular contributions in > MANET should be acknowledged in any particular document. Had > either of the two I-Ds listed above that were addressed to that WG > gotten traction we might be having a discussion now about who he > would see fit to acknowledge. But, instead, we see expired -00 > drafts and a lot of complaints. > > Sad situation for all concerned. Indeed. Thus my subtle suggestion that the original poster complete some real technical work in the IETF community before making more suggestions about process. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRUQCxAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pTF8P/1AsvEcbaF77HZPbgxaI/FgX sBrFG+5TZSkFsF9Uc3iGleIyfux8WKxb0Gl0q/ooKXBQMl+iQ5AXddcuInZAnPl7 kADinPs0sKZ/2b1o5vEOEEcv0D9ZV4bAFg8kj+ErGQu8ATCLK7mDJYZwBhQ+2EnD S8+J0kC5wKpGEVcqJPoWj1ag6y69451F0dE0XsGFtw/bN7lS4m4Q4ngblHj6f/fC uHmPYHGiHU572mIoeD9vDpQ8sGqDDWgQmKSi8SCzrnQq9VoQMEiGYm/jtEElW4D/ 1r0HY5QwcAI4rk6T1tjXkINZe0FaQtK4JZkeWIygY+ir559wl4drw3I095MB5ERc AM6rGQkuf1vvkno0N0Q0eB1+sjCQon1LZTofM98n+NXc+GGH3dfUEpagjUGmDHcm VpqlQ/RjQBoD3wkCQ5YRMK/mcGgjLoerqINf7mRVZrrr1pHAkqjV5msnbM/Ls5iD CZJX8FDOXDHqwAfiRYZANKx+o8tqXFrrL+GA51SfR/imlF2X7hjW7hFMklurqhNV lE6gHV5APK4537852YwsfDkBcjbH6jdJPWYFPbWramxMxdggusi8wOuioVa5dfc2 kney6JkUARcvlUUVtLcW4ricOYG9gF36zaSWG/zeEe6ZHlNOJQYmaAJ4oxk3xoMC Tfy0MiUkkxJ7pHwOvLyT =xUOr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----