This is all a sort of confusing point of many IETF documents and not unique to
this one. I think the important points is that for many IETF documents, the
people listed on the front page are not the authors. Typically the list of
authors is a much longer list. And to clarify what I mean by Author, I mean it
in the sense that it would used in copyright law. I do think the
Acknowledgements section needs to identity anyone who is a contributor to the
document. The limit on number of people on the front pages makes it impossible
to even put all the authors on the front page if we wanted to.
So my main point is, just because someone is listed on front page or not,
should not be used to decide if they are an author or not.
The use of "Ed." has been a bit inconsistent at the IETF and I'm not aware of
good guidelines on how and when to use it. Traditionally when we have had a few
people producing the drafts and incorporating work from the multiple people in
on the mailing list, the people where were actively editing the document have
often been listed on the front page. There are many exception to this - I was a
bit cheesed to not be listed on the front page of RFC 4244.
Back to the matter at hand ... This is a pretty classic sort of document where
an individual draft got selected as a basis for the WG document, multiple
people in the WG contributed text, a final draft was produced. Historically,
most IETF docs like this do not put "Ed" after all the people on the front
page. However, perhaps we should, I don't really have any strong opinion one
way or the other. I can confirm that this document, like many documents coming
out of a WG, includes contribution from people beyond the list of names on the
front page.
Cullen
On Jun 16, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Christian Hoene wrote:
Hello,
In this draft, the editors of draft are not named as editors but as authors.
Thus, I would suggest to follow the example given in
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5620.txt and add an ", Ed." behind the
names. A list of authors is given in the acknowledgement section of the
draft.
With best regards,
Christian Hoene
-----Original Message-----
From: codec-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:codec-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of The IESG
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:24 PM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: codec(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-requirements-04.txt> (Codec
Requirements) to Informational RFC
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Wideband Audio Codec
WG
(codec) to consider the following document:
- 'Codec Requirements'
<draft-ietf-codec-requirements-04.txt> as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2011-06-30. Exceptionally,
comments may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document provides specific requirements for an Internet audio
codec. These requirements address quality, sampling rate, bit-rate,
and packet loss robustness, as well as other desirable properties.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-requirements/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-requirements/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
codec(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
codec(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf