ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The RFC Acknowledgement

2013-02-11 16:34:52
Hi SM,

thanks for your email, my reply inline;

On 2/11/13, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
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

I agree with them and never disagreed, I just gave a point of view,

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.

Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has
no right to edit/amend a document that it is publishing? I
misunderstand your point,


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?

No you should not be acknowledged only because any author in world
will answer that in same way, and the one who suggest a changes
already knows as the author when an Ack is recommended.


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".

Yes I think it may be worth, because we want to encourage reviews and
discussions, we want to increase participation (please note that there
is very low participation in IETF per draft if you compare with number
of authors of drafts). I am not sure why people try to avoid thanking
others for their significant TIME given. Your reply and others are
concerned more about the details of significant of change in I-D but I
am more concerned of both.


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.

These reviews can be out of the authors' acknowledgement because
usually it was a reply to IESG-request, the IESG should Ack the
reviewers if they are following polite practices. In addition, thoes
reviews were  last-call review/input but if there was an amendment
resulted I recommend it will be nice to document it in Ack. Usually
authors (of WG I-Ds or Individual I-Ds) start asking participants to
review and give comments because they want draft-reputation (drafts
reputation is needed to be discovered not participants reputations),
so if there was one replying to an author to reveiw what do you think
the right think to do? The answer is to say thanks :)

 The Requester SHOULD ACK the Replier when the Requester receives the
message/action requested (Even Machines do ACK each other, when they
request).

Thanks for your feedback
AB


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".



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>