I already did write many I-Ds and may write one to fix this in IETF as
many do fix things by I-Ds. This discussion and others are just start
to see opinions,
AB
On 3/25/13, l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk
<l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Abusallam,
if you want namecheck credit on an internet draft, may I suggest simply
writing an internet draft yourself?
(I would also recommend leaving writing drafts until after a PhD is
complete; for the PhD, it's academic papers that matter.)
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
_____________________________________
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Abdussalam
Baryun [abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 25 March 2013 06:02
To: melinda.shore
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections
Hi Melinda
I like what we have so far, but are those connected
processes/information reflected into the produced document? Why
ignoring names of volunteers? I suggest to fix this,
AB
+++++++++++++
We have the mailing list archives, we've got the document shepherd
writeups, we've got the IESG evaluation record, we've got the IESG
writeups, we've got meeting minutes, we've got jabber session
archives, we've got audio recordings of meetings, and we've got the
document history.
Melinda
So when I read a RFC I may go through the document process and its
draft versions, while going through the drafts related I see
acknowledged names so I may find the input on the list for such name.
In this way we have connections between inputs otherwise the IETF
system has no connection between its important information.
AB