On 3/4/09 12:17 PM, "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <petithug(_at_)acm(_dot_)org> wrote:
Now, I know by experience that even significant contributions to an
I-D does not guarantee you a place in the acknowledgement section.
If that's indeed the case then that's a problem independent of this proposal.
Failure to properly acknowledge significant contributions is wrong no matter
how you slice it.
That said, I have on more than one occasion gotten requests from someone that
their name be removed from an acknowledgements section. In fact in one case I
was tempted in one case to replace the name with Alan Smithee, but on further
consideration I decided that was a bad idea...
So what is the incentive into developing code that 1) will probably
be obsoleted by the next version of the I-D and 2) will not be
acknowledged at all in contributing to the improvement of the protocol?
I tend to assume people will be interested in a protocol
for some other reasons than garnering acknowledgements
and fluffing their resumes, and those other reasons will
presumably be sufficient motivation.
And if you do an implementation of a protocol nothing prevents you from listing
that fact on a resume. I don't see why mention in an RFC would be a prequiisite
for this. And if authors are required to list all implementations per this
proposal independent of whether or not that work actually contributes to the
specification, the value of such citations drops to almost nothing anyway.
Implementing something
will tend to be a pretty good way to find bugs, inefficiencies,
or other problems with a protocol specification. If you're
interested in kudos, take the issues you find to the mailing
list rather than directly to the author.
+1
I'm pretty surprised by this argument.
+1
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf