On Jun 7, 2006, at 12:03 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This is the negative side of the discussion going on.
People are focusing on reasons why someone might want to be
included in acknowledgements. I am merely pointing out that
it is also possible that someone might not want this.
Understood. But that is precisely why listing in an
acknowledgement must not have implications of "responsibility"
for the whole document.
Guys: can you say "majoring on the minors"?
Acknowledgments are used every way under the sun. Marshall Rose, in
early SNMP documents, listed the entire working group by name as
having contributed in some way. I generally list the people who send
me comments on drafts, and if they send unusually large number of
comments, I might say as much. The fact that they sent notes doesn't
mean they agree - far from it. For example, RFC 4192 (procedures for
renumbering) makes the following observation:
This document grew out of a discussion on the IETF list. Commentary
on the document came from [major snippage].
Some took it on themselves to convince the authors that the concept
of network renumbering as a normal or frequent procedure is daft.
Their comments, if they result in improved address management
practices in networks, may be the best contribution this note has to
offer.
I would be hard pressed to say that the folks who wrote to tell me I
was wasting my time even thinking about the subject were responsible
for what I wrote.
No acknowledgment that I know of attributes responsibility to those
who commented. That is invariably the domain of the authors, editors,
or the working group that managed them.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf