AB, This may surprise you, but not everyone cares what you think. John Sent from my iPhone On Jun 8, 2013, at 1:51 AM, "Abdussalam Baryun" <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear Routing Area AD, > > I had many comments/issues regarding your area always addressed to you > and including this issue which I hope my all comments (past/present) > will help to make better practice/procedural progresses in this IETF > Area. > I am sorry also to any one receiving this email but I send it only to > an AD, IETF, and IESG. This is not noise but a signal to IETF to > progress, if you think it is noise please explain, and please notice > that all particpants have rights under the IETF procedures not only > managements. My reply below and if you want to continue discussing on > any other list please inform me, but if you reply copying any list, I > will have to do the same because you are part of management and I am > not. > > On 6/6/13, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Sorry to everyone for the noise this thread is creating. > > This thread containing my messages never creates noise, I beleive you > may ne refering to your messages only as noise. Please note that I > don't accept this describtion, I think that community messages > regarding any I-D is never noise even if the IETF management could not > handle the volume. I RECOMMEND any receiver that has noise in it to > fix its problem without blaming transmitters. > >> Multiple questions that I have to answer. > > ok, that is why this list is discussing list for ietf progress, > >> >>>> It falls to me to make a call on this issue before the document moves >>>> on. >>>> >>>> Abdussalam has complained that he has not been acknowledged and has >>>> objected to the current text in section 8. >>>> The authors have responded on the MANET list >>>> >>>>> We believe that only comments that lead to significant improvements of >>>>> the draft deserve a listing in the acknowledgment section, and we have >>>>> therefore not modified the section. >>> >>> What was the WG decision? >> >> Are you asking whether there was an explicit consensus call within the >> working >> group on whether or not you should be acknowledged in this document? > > I think the question is clear, and is easy to answer. The answer is, > there was no decision made by the WG or the community regarding my > request of adding a name in the ack section. You send me back a > question saying explicit consensus, it is simpler to make my question > asking of notification of such reaction from management, which was not > either established. I did not get a message saying that any kind of > consensus was established privately/publicly on any IETF lists (please > ask the WG chair because I am sure I did not received any answer for > my request by the WG/community). > >> There was no such call in the working group or on the IETF list. > > Thanks for the answer, so I understand that the editors/management did > not answer my request (one person from the community), just because > they or AD did not beleive in my concerns without consulting the WG in > any way. > >> >>> Why any contribution that influnces the I-D ideas is not acknowledged? >>> IMO, if a technical-idea within the I-D was discovered wrong by a >>> participant, or a new technical-idea added to I-D from an input, then >>> the I-D should be acknowledged. >> >> This opinion does not apply to your comments on this document. You did not >> discover a wrong technical-idea. Your comments did not lead directly to the >> addition of any new technical-idea. > > The question of I-D managers not acknowledging such > input/contribution, was not answered if you agree to acknowledge > discovering an error or adding a new idea. Regarding the opinion, do > you agree with the opinion first? Regarding the error and missing > information, I did discover error in the document and did found > missing definitions if this informational I-D (after my contribution > there was changes made to the document, please notice that) >> >>>> I have reviewed the email threads on the MANET mailing list and do not >>>> consider that Abdussalam made contributions to the text of the >>>> document. >>> >>> Didn't that person make review and discovered errors? >> >> "That person" is you. > > Yes but I said that because this message it not me defending me, it is > me defending future wrong reaction of ignoring to acknowledge the > persons in the community. If any I-D authors are best knowledgeable > people in a special field they should not try to seek to > dis-acknowledge the community efforts that changed few I-D ideas (even > if the community person is not expert, that does not mean that authors > have right to exclude contributors). > >> Yes, you made a review. Reviewing a document is not something authors >> acknowledge in the IETF or (AFAIK) in academic journals. > > I disagree with your opinion, but do you think your opinion is in the > IETF procedure, if yes please provide me with that procedure of not > acknowledgement. I respect your opinion but it is wrong because in one > sense yes documents in the world don't acknowledge all reviews > (usually when they don't request it), one the other hand the world > documents do acknowledge reviews when the document owner calls for > review. Please note that this I-D did request/call for review and I > was the only reveiwer in the WGLC, and my review made the authors > change some ideas. > >> No, I don't think you discovered errors of any significance. > > My comments and discussions are in the MANET WG. The errors were; 1) > not explaining the word *attack* in I-D version 2 and/or referencing > explainations. 2) wrong explaination of physical communication in > MANET. > Both ideas ware changed please see the two versions of I-D 2 and 3. > > Example error idea in the I-D was: > [I-D wrong idea] As wireless radio waves can be captured as well as transmitted > by any wireless device within radio range. > [my discovery contribution] > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15250.html > >> >> Caveating my answers below as describing a contribution to a document (not >> a >> contribution in the wider IETF sense) > > An IETF I-D contribution is a contribution (don't care about the > editors' beleive of kind of contributions), small, large, substantial, > non-substantial, minor, major, from-expert, not-from-expert, > from-popular, from-non-popular, from-f2f-participant, > from-remote-participant, etc. >> >>> Why don't you consider discovering an error as a contribution? >> >> I would personally consider discovering a major error as something I would >> acknowledge it in a document I was editing. > > You use word major as if we know what it means. Something minor to you > may be major to someone else don't you think. If your documents if for > experts please mention that in you documents, please know your > audiance/readers. I understand that IETF documents are for ALL the > Internet Community on EARTH. Therefore, the word major/minor is > relative to the reader not writer. > >> I would personally consider discovering multiple minor errors as something >> I >> would acknowledge it in a document I was editing. > > Again you say you, I want IETF opinion not editors, I want WG > decisions not your decisions, however, I already waiting for the IESG > decisions on this matter, and I understand that your decision is a one > part of that but not full/final. One error discovery or multiple, both > are contributions and are needed. In our volunteering work if the > work/I-D/RFC has many mistakes we don't blame the editors but the > community, but if the work had no mistake we give all credit to > authors, IMHO, we always should refer to the community in good or bad > outcomes of IETF documents. Therefore acknowledging the parts of > community is important. >> >> However, there is no requirement for editors to act in that way. > > No, editors are required to edit/act what the community is seeking, > why are they called editors for the WG? the authority is for the WG > not editors. > >> Furthermore, >> you do not fit into these categories for this document. > > I do fit, I think you should not decide now, let it to be done through > IETF procedure. > >> >>> Why don't you consider providing new ideas a contribution? >> >> I would consider providing major ideas as something I would acknowledge it >> in a >> document I was editing. >> I would consider providing smaller ideas through text for inclusion in the >> document as something I would acknowledge it in a document I was editing. >> You do not fit into these categories for this document. > > I think I do fit from IETF point of view (maybe not yours). I gave my > discovery of error, and if the editors want text I will give them, it > is a discussion issue between both sides in a WG. Text is not much > important like the idea, the idea is the most important thing in any > organisation. English texting can be another contribution, or proof > readings, but the main contribution is the idea that was changed. > >> >>> What is your definition to contribution? >> >> As above, or written text that was included or modified for inclusion in a >> document and represents a material or substantial part of the document. > > the idea is more important than text, if changed sentence idea we > SHOULD acknowledge, if changed sentance text without changing idea we > do not have to acknowledge. So text changing/adding without new-idea > or English correction is not acknowledged im my opinion. > >> >>>> I also believe that the comments he made did not advance the >>>> content of the document. >>> >>> So I understand that you need to have advance the content then you >>> acknowledge. >>> >>>> Furthermore, per multiple references (such as RFC 2026) the >>>> Acknowledgements section is used to "properly acknowledge >>>> major contributors. >>> >>> I am trying to find that condition of *major contribution*, >> >> I would borrow from 2026 and 5378 to say a material or substantial >> contribution >> to the document. >> >> And, before you ask, no-one is going to write down a rule that says 139 >> characters is not substantial, but 140 is. >> >> This is one of the places where a principal of reasonableness applies. I >> would >> know a major contribution if I saw one. I did not see one from you in this >> case. > > I will wait for the IESG decision on that. Major or minor is relative > to the readers not to the writers. You have big experience but that > does not mean you should exclude any minor contribution, I hope you > reconsider that. Some experts don't like to show that non-popular > found their mistakes, but Why thoes experts came to use IETF service > which calls-reviews to all levels of experties to contribute to the > document they author under IETF ownership? > >> >>>> " Normal IETF business is to discuss not seek acknowledgement. >>> >>> Ideas, Comments and reviews are included in the discuss for drafts >>> progress. Seeking acknowledgement is not wrong within IETF, but please >>> consider *not acknowledging reviews* within IETF documents is not IETF >>> culture (we are not paid so why you thinking much of the business, the >>> IETF business will only progress with acknowledging the volunteers). >> >> If you want to change the way that the IETF participants (and document >> authors/editors in particular) acknowledge reviews of their documents, then >> please start a separate thread or, better still, write an I-D and see >> whether >> you can gain consensus. > > I know that, but your advise comes back to you also, if you want to > change the community expectations close to your opinions, I advise you > to write an I-D that shows where to exclude participants to IETF > documents. > >> The last time you brought this topic up on this >> list, I >> do not recall seeing support. > > Few did not support which were less than 15 persons, because IMO, > there was no evidance of editors seeking to ignore reviewers > contributions. Also, change is difficult any where in any > organisation, so it will take time, IMO, people realise that > participating-experts of IETF are the minority comapared to the > community. I decided to complain any procedure error first and then > write about what happend, so I will wait to see what is the IESG > decision regarding the acknowledgement request. Please note that I > have many procedural I-D in mind but it depends on the right time to > submit it and get support. > >> >> The only reason I can find for someone being able to demand that they are >> named >> in an Acknowledgements Section is for conformance to the IETF's Rights >> policies. > > My reason is that the truth SHOULD be reflected on the document. If > you are editor I recommend you may say in the section thanks to x for > his minor contribution if that satisfies your WG you work with, but > not to ignore the truth. The truth is that IETF is calling for reviews > from the community mostly not only from companies, and that your > document changed an idea, so you ack. > >> >>>> I do not propose to do an explicit consensus call on whether Abdussalam >>>> should be named in this draft. >>> >>> IMO, it should have been done in the WG. >> >> Thank you for your opinion. >> Are you asserting that consensus on the readiness of this document for a >> publication request was incorrectly called by the working group chairs. >> This >> would be a serious allegation against the chairs and I would require >> evidence >> that there had been no consensus or that they had made an incorrect >> assessment >> of the consensus. > > No, I accepted that the I-D goes to IESG only the complaint request of > acknowledgement and the community reviews in IETF-LC. The wg chair > mentioned my complaint in his report. I wait for the IESG decisions > related to this I-D. > > Best Regards > > Abdussalam Baryun > > A Participant working in IETF (subscribed) > A Memebr of Internet Society (registered) > >