--On Monday, March 25, 2013 09:05 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> 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. john
