Hi Abdussalam,
At 23:10 24-03-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Do you have a reference that shows that IETF follows your opinion,
please point to a best practice of informational RFC that mentions
that, we should not assume.
I agree with the comments in the message from Joel Halpern at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg78211.html In
my opinion the acknowledgements "may explain the scope and nature of
contributions". It is not a log of changes.
At 23:28 24-03-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Some people never recognise new comers ideas until backed up with old
comer idea. Do you think that is right? I agree with your suggestion
only if the IETF editor team agree to include you in the possibility
of produce team ideas. I don't think all working groups in the IETF
are giving chance to people/mew-comers to involve/participate, my
experience that I am ignored, so the best way to be valuable for
future reader, is not to let some team to exclude others. From my
experience, I see that some teams just want their document to go
through IESG without comments/delays. Do you think that is good for
the process? This ignorance should be fixed.
I don't know whether it would be helpful to suggest reading
draft-krishnan-review-process-01 (expired draft).
When things do not work the way I wish I can:
(a) Ask for the process to be changed.
(b) Consider that I am being treated unfairly.
(c) Step back and think about why things do not work out the way I wish.
Regards,
-sm