Subject: Discussions in IETF WGs

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 12:12:27 +0200

++++++++++++++++   Possible Duplication  +++++++++++++++

Hi Folks,

IMHO, there are difference between discussion that MAY become
argumentable and/or debatable. In a healthy-discussion you produce new
ideas and educate yourself and others, but in unproductive-discussion
you MAY block any progress and waste time.  I define productive
discussion as the posting/speaking of a point of view referenced by
scientific facts or RFCs. I define debates as the posting/speaking of
points without good-referencing or without good-reasoning. IMHO these
debating inputs with no good reference will not provide progress in
discussions, even though it may (in low probability) start indirectly
an interest/input to a work-in-progress.

For example, in one of the WG discussion on list, two members of WG
have referenced a history-discussion and informed me to read them
regarding some subject, I did do that but was *lost in translation*. I
now think that the memebrs' advise was to a wrong direction. We SHOULD
NOT refer in our current discussions to any other
history-subjected-discussions (thoes discussion had no approve by WG
consensus nor IESG review) in any WGs.  Also referring to old
discussions in the list result to waste time and MAY make current
arguments long (i.e. long means more than 5 working days), or even
makes the current argument unproductive.Old-discussions MAY be
misleading/incorrect/invalid, even if they are helpful to gain some
knowledge.

We should *reference* mostly RFCs in our discussion, because RFCs are
correct resource. The reason is because only RFCs are productions of
healthy discussions and reviewed by experts in IESG. IMHO the IETF
sees that RFCs are the correct-progress-reference. All Discussions are
important for the IETF processes and to produce RFCs. Memebers of the
WG should try to direct their discussions in the direction of progress
without discouraging debate-input. Discussions that produce I-D that
in the end submits <I-Ds are work-in-progress> are the most productive
discussions. IMO it is accepted in discussions to reference scientific
research papers, reviewed publications, industry experience, or RFCs,
but please don’t accept in discussion the validity of ; a) a reference
to a specific historic discussion that possibly were with wrong
arguments, or b) a reference to unproductive discussions.

In conclusion, we should try with the help of the WGs chairs to direct
our discussions to become more productive, and within a reasonable
time, and if we see any good-correct ideas, we SHOULD react quickly
and input in a informational I-D and submit to WG for approval so we
don't repeat refering to wrong-argumental-discussion.

If you feel differently please advise, thanking you :)

Best regards

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
< In discussions one may be wrong, or may be right, but it does not
matter if we work together as a group to progress and resolve all
issues. IETF WGs are always right >
****************************************************************************************

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 22:34:56 +0200

Hi Folks,

Best regards

Abdussalam Baryun

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:54:27 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>misleading/incorrect/invalid, even if they are helpful to gain some

If someone is not aware of the old discussions about an issue it can 
be a problem.  The issue may have to be discussed again when there 
isn't any new input available.

Is the above related to discussions in the MANET WG?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: [email-masked] (Martin Rex)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:09:03 +0200 (CEST)

Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> makes the current argument unproductive. Old-discussions MAY be

There is no substiantial difference between old discussions and recent
discussions.  Referencing an argument from an earlier discussion rather
than repeating it is often an improvement with a significant potential to
actually save time, and zero risk to waste time (compared to repeating
the exact same previous arguments in a new message).

> correct resource.

If RFCs were correct, we would neither need an Errata process, nor
maturity levels, nor -bis documents.

"RFCs are correct" is a bold and dangerous presumption.  Many RFCs
are vague or even ambigous, and they may contain numerous implications
that are non-obvious to a number of readers, and sometimes non-obvious
to implementors and document authors).

All that can be said about standard track RFCs, is that they're the result
of the IETF consensus process.  And the primary focus of the IETF consensus
process is to resolve dissent (technical or procedural objections),
_not_ correctness.  Some level of confidence about correctness can be obtained
by creating independent implementations and demonstrate that they interop
on the implemented features, but results are mixed, and most interop
tests are lacking (test only a fraction of the features and only a fraction
of the implementations in the installed base, and rarely "border cases"
of unusual encodings).

-Martin

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:09:26 +0200

Hi Martin,

I thank you for your help and comments, it will help me for future.

comments in line:

> the exact same previous arguments in a new message).

I agree with you, but only if the reference was pointed by date or
subject, so the all readers can follow the current discussion and
reference. also if the it was copied from the history (if short
discussion) forward to the current it will be useful, but overall
mentioning the subject/date of discussion is important.

> to implementors and document authors).

I just mentioned that to compare RFC with discussion list. In your
refering if the RFC maybe vague and it is the product of the
discussions, so what about the discussion as a reference.

> of the implementations in the installed base, and rarely "border cases"

IMO the RFC is result of both; WG discussions first, and then
consensus process. Regarding confidence issue I agree with you,

> -Martin

Best regards
Abdussalam
==========