Sorry to everyone for the noise this thread is creating.
Multiple questions that I have to answer.
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?
Are you asking whether there was an explicit consensus call within the working
group on whether or not you should be acknowledged in this document?
There was no such call in the working group or on the IETF list.
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.
This opinion does not apply to your comments on this document. You did not
discover a wrong technical-idea. Your comments did not lead directly to the
addition of any new technical-idea.
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?
"That person" is you.
Yes, you made a review. Reviewing a document is not something authors
acknowledge in the IETF or (AFAIK) in academic journals.
No, I don't think you discovered errors of any significance.
Caveating my answers below as describing a contribution to a document (not a
contribution in the wider IETF sense)
Why don't you consider discovering an error as a contribution?
I would personally consider discovering a major error as something I would
acknowledge it in a document I was editing.
I would personally consider discovering multiple minor errors as something I
would acknowledge it in a document I was editing.
However, there is no requirement for editors to act in that way. Furthermore,
you do not fit into these categories for this document.
Why don't you consider providing new ideas a contribution?
I would consider providing major ideas as something I would acknowledge it in a
document I was editing.
I would consider providing smaller ideas through text for inclusion in the
document as something I would acknowledge it in a document I was editing.
You do not fit into these categories for this document.
What is your definition to contribution?
As above, or written text that was included or modified for inclusion in a
document and represents a material or substantial part of the document.
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*,
I would borrow from 2026 and 5378 to say a material or substantial contribution
to the document.
And, before you ask, no-one is going to write down a rule that says 139
characters is not substantial, but 140 is.
This is one of the places where a principal of reasonableness applies. I would
know a major contribution if I saw one. I did not see one from you in this case.
" 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).
If you want to change the way that the IETF participants (and document
authors/editors in particular) acknowledge reviews of their documents, then
please start a separate thread or, better still, write an I-D and see whether
you can gain consensus. The last time you brought this topic up on this list, I
do not recall seeing support.
The only reason I can find for someone being able to demand that they are named
in an Acknowledgements Section is for conformance to the IETF's Rights policies.
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.
Thank you for your opinion.
Are you asserting that consensus on the readiness of this document for a
publication request was incorrectly called by the working group chairs. This
would be a serious allegation against the chairs and I would require evidence
that there had been no consensus or that they had made an incorrect assessment
of the consensus.
Thank you,
Adrian