Hi Abdussalam,
Eric Burger provided some information about acknowledgements in a
message at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77076.html Fred
Baker shared his perspective in a message at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71104.html
At 23:47 10-02-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Then from your opinion to be fare, I RECOMMEND that the RFC-section
SHOULD be changed to *Authors' Acknowledgements*. Please note that the
RFC is owned by the IETF so the section of ACK should not be only
thanks of the authors or editors or Chairs, otherwise SHOULD be
mentioned in title. IETF considers all inputs related to I-D as a
contribution, please read the NOTE WELL. So do we understand that IETF
is impolite with some of its contributors/workers?
I don't see anything in RFCs to point to the fact that "the RFC is
owned by the IETF". The Note Well is about keeping the lawyers
happy. I don't see what it has to do with impolite. If your name
has been missed in the Acknowledgements Section you could send a
message to the author, with a copy to the document shepherd, about that.
It is not about bonuses, it is about truth I-D's influences and the
way the IETF process and work progresses. Do you think an I-D
progresses only if experts comment and contribute? don't think so,
best ideas come from discussions of different level of experiences
including zero, :-)
This is what I saw in a draft: "The authors would like to thank
Christian Jacquenet, Tim Winter, Pieter De Mil, David Meyer and
Abdussalam Baryun for their valuable feed-back". I note that there
is only one person listed as an author. If I suggest removing the
"s" from author, should I be mentioned in the Acknowledgements Section?
There was a Last Call for draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-10. There can be
a DISCUSS on that draft because of an insignificant detail [1]. I
don't really know whether it's worth an "acknowledgement".
Thomas Heide Clausen commented [2] about draft-cardenas-dff-09
[4]. I don't know the person (zero reputation). You also posted a
review [3]. The first review is clearer.
Regards,
-sm
1. My guess is that the reviewer will catch it.
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77078.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77089.html
4. I glanced at the draft. Section 2.2 is about
terminology. Section 14.1.1 also mentions terminology. There are
different definitions for "Address".