a complete new protocol proposal is rarely a recipe for success.
I didn't mean to make a complete new proposal, it is just the idea then with the IETF it can be completed.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
From: Brian E Carpenter
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
CC:
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.
>