On 6/6/13, Adrian Farrel <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Hi,
It falls to me to make a call on this issue before the document moves on.
Abdussalam has complained that he has not been acknowledged and has objected
to
the current text in section 8.
The authors have responded on the MANET list
We believe that only comments that lead to significant improvements of
the draft deserve a listing in the acknowledgment section, and we have
therefore not modified the section.
What was the WG decision? Why any contribution that influnces the I-D
ideas is not acknowledged? IMO, if a technical-idea within the I-D was
discovered wrong by a participant, or a new technical-idea added to
I-D from an input, then the I-D should be acknowledged.
I have reviewed the email threads on the MANET mailing list and do not
consider
that Abdussalam made contributions to the text of the document.
Didn't that person make review and discovered errors? Why don't you
consider discovering an error as a contribution? Why don't you
consider providing new ideas a contribution? What is your definition
to contribution?
I also
believe
that the comments he made did not advance the content of the document.
So I understand that you need to have advance the content then you acknowledge.
Furthermore, per multiple references (such as RFC 2026) the
Acknowledgements
section is used to "properly acknowledge major contributors.
I am trying to find that condition of *major contribution*,
" Normal IETF
business is to discuss not seek acknowledgement.
Ideas, Comments and reviews are included in the discuss for drafts
progress. Seeking acknowledgement is not wrong within IETF, but please
consider *not acknowledging reviews* within IETF documents is not IETF
culture (we are not paid so why you thinking much of the business, the
IETF business will only progress with acknowledging the volunteers).
I do not propose to do an explicit consensus call on whether Abdussalam
should
be named in this draft.
IMO, it should have been done in the WG.
AB
From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 03 June 2013 17:10
To: ietf
Cc: adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [manet] Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt>
(Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
I would hope that IETF add my name in the acknowledgement section of the
I-D. I
complained to AD about that my efforts in WGLC was not acknowledged by
editors
even after my request, however, I did not stop reviewing (trying not be
discouraged) which I will complete on 6 June with the final comments.
Therefore,
this message (can be added as a comment on the I-D) is an objection to
section 8
that ignores acknowledge input/review effort related to the I-D.
AB