Khaled, I originally drafted the material at https://www.ietf.org/newcomers.html . Now I realise that there is one important topic missing in the section "How to Start", something like this: Experience shows that starting your participation in the IETF with a complete new protocol proposal is rarely a recipe for success. With Internet protocols being up to 40 years old, the Internet as a system being highly complex, and operational practices being extremely diverse, it is very unlikely that an ambitious new proposal will fit in just like that. A more successful technique is to join an existing IETF activity, suggesting improvements and learning from the experience, before making ambitious proposals. (Or to say it more simply: serve an IETF apprenticeship first. We all did that.) Brian On 20/12/2017 10:20, Khaled Omar wrote: >> Yes, I'm harsh, but this is because many persons already kindly explained the problem to you, and you > apparently don't listen. So, I have to retry harder. > > Which proposals you are talking about? All? for some time some people felt not comfortable with IPv10 and the discussion has been stopped, but with KRP and NEP I received almost nothing thats why I'm asking for decisions regarding the discussion. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > To: Khaled Omar > CC: ietf ,rtgwg > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:46:29PM +0000, > Khaled Omar wrote > a message of 14 lines which said: > >> I noticed that the IETF participants gives only negative comments >> regarding the submitted IDs, that is good in some cases if it is >> true, but to ignore the positive side > > Calvin Coolidge, a former US president, apparently said that the > important job in the governement was not to promote good bills, but to > kill bad ones. There are already many protocols and many RFC. Adding > more is not a goal in itself. > >> It's been long time on the rtgwg mailing list and didn't have any >> technical discussion or comments for KRP and NEP or even an official >> review. > > The problem at the IETF is that most people are too polite to explain > to you the truth. So, let me try: your proposals are worthless and do > not deserve a serious discussion. Yes, I'm harsh, but this is because > many persons already kindly explained the problem to you, and you > apparently don't listen. So, I have to retry harder. >