Send ietf mailing list submissions to
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
You can reach the person managing the list at
ietf-owner(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ietf digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
(manning bill)
2. Re: Drafts that can't be serious (Carlos Vera Quintana)
3. IAOC Member Resignation (IETF Administrative Director)
4. Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
(Behcet Sarikaya)
5. Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
(Fred Baker (fred))
6. Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
(John C Klensin)
7. Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
(Fred Baker (fred))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:40:44 -0700
From: manning bill <bmanning(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
Message-ID: <5FA2CBFE-7662-42C9-BD4D-FFB564DE9EC5(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
then there is the problem of folk who insist on being listed as co-authors
even when they have contributed nothing to
the text or the idea.
if co-authors are ?confirmed? automatically, the problems will not go away or
be fixed..
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 21April2015Tuesday, at 4:26, Bernie Volz (volz)
<volz(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Be nice if the posting tool confirmed co-author(s) whenever a co-author(s)
is "new" (all would be new for -00). This would require keeping a database
of the drafts and co-authors.
- Bernie (from iPad)
On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:46 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I?m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I?m bringing it here.
Happy to be redirected.
I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being listed as
an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and in some cases,
that I hadn?t even seen. In most cases, I have been able to get the
putative co-author to remove my name in a -01 version. I can point to at
least one draft that I didn?t initially agree to co-author, was
unsuccessful in getting my "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up largely
re-writing, which involved a lot of work. I?m not alone in this; various
people have complained of third parties listing them as co-authors on
drafts without their consent.
I?m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco colleagues, who
found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they didn?t know anything
about in one working group, got their names off the draft, and then
discovered their names on a related draft in another working group. It
seems to me that an ethical line was crossed in the interest of showing
support for a concept.
First, I?d like to believe that this isn?t an acceptable practice. I?d like
to believe, shock of shocks, that a co-author is first someone that has
agreed to co-author, and is someone that has text or at least concepts that
are included in the draft.
Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple approach
would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, the authors
are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the draft actually
gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or on the web. What
would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all of the co-authors
to positively respond, and have the posting fail if they don?t, or if any
responds negatively?
This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I understand an
address changing in a later version of a draft
(someone(_at_)example1(_dot_)com becomes
someone+else(_at_)example2(_dot_)com) and being missed in a draft update,
but I don?t understand an incorrect address on the -00 version.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:06:53 -0500
From: Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: Doug Ewell <doug(_at_)ewellic(_dot_)org>
Cc: "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Drafts that can't be serious
Message-ID: <20EDF6DB-B966-4FFB-BB3E-262A0C628FA7(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
This should be made by hand, I guess, due to nature and policy of discussions
here.
Carlos Vera Quintana
0988141143
S?gueme @cveraq
El 20/4/2015, a las 10:04, Doug Ewell <doug(_at_)ewellic(_dot_)org> escribi?:
From "New and Revived Drafts" this morning:
draft-pkx-infobirdiconswww-04, "Information as a bird with wings that
flies and hits the user device screen as Icons":
"No one has contacted me regarding this project and i see the same
criminal hands of repulsives in palakkad that has attacked me in Jan
2010 and Oct 2013, criminal doctors and their businesses that need to be
stopped and those who attacked me executed. They have diagnosed me as a
schizophrenic to steal and expend my wealth and they need to be executed
for attacking me.I am a healthy heterosexual unable to live with a woman
since 2001 because of cybercrime because money send to me is stolen"
draft-emaillogger-02, "Email provider should provide email owner an
audit log":
"Its a shame that these are not implemented a group trying to murder me
or make me a disabled and preventing me from leading my life in
California. Anyone can own this and use their resources to implement
these, they can just email me. As i am writing this out of my own
requirement, i demand my personal wealth not used to maintain ietf.org
or to send emails. Its my impression that they are self sufficient. I
would work on these when i have my money in my bank at my speed"
Is there a filter that the IETF can apply to defer the posting of drafts
like this until the next April 1?
--
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO ??
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:58:31 -0700
From: IETF Administrative Director <iad(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
To: "IETF Announcement List" <ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: IAOC Member Resignation
Message-ID:
<20150420195831(_dot_)31799(_dot_)68752(_dot_)idtracker(_at_)ietfa(_dot_)amsl(_dot_)com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
All;
Chris Griffiths, the IAOC Chair, submitted his resignation today
from the IAOC and IETF Trust effective immediately.
The NomCom has been notified of the vacancy.
In accordance with the IAOC Administrative Procedures* Tobias
Gondrom, the IETF Trust Chair, will assume the role of Acting Chair
of the IAOC. There will be an announcement when an IAOC Chair has
been elected by the IAOC.
We want to thank Chris for his service on the IAOC since 2012 and
his leadership as IAOC chair for the last two years.
Ray
IAD
*
https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IAOC-Administrative-Procedures-9-16-
2010.pdf
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:51:28 -0500
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
Message-ID:
<CAC8QAcf5MgvUauZHnq6nqWt2cZMJLxtAvSMTXOa+OOrQ1TsWzQ(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Fred Baker (fred)
<fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
I?m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I?m bringing it here.
Happy to be redirected.
I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being listed as
an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and in some cases,
that I hadn?t even seen. In most cases, I have been able to get the putative
co-author to remove my name in a -01 version. I can point to at least one
draft that I didn?t initially agree to co-author, was unsuccessful in
getting my "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up largely re-writing, which
involved a lot of work. I?m not alone in this; various people have
complained of third parties listing them as co-authors on drafts without
their consent.
I?m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco colleagues, who
found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they didn?t know anything about
in one working group, got their names off the draft, and then discovered
their names on a related draft in another working group. It seems to me that
an ethical line was crossed in the interest of showing support for a concept.
First, I?d like to believe that this isn?t an acceptable practice. I?d like
to believe, shock of shocks, that a co-author is first someone that has
agreed to co-author, and is someone that has text or at least concepts that
are included in the draft.
I agree with the problem above.
What is the percentage of drafts with such "co-authors"?
Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple approach
would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, the authors
are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the draft actually
gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or on the web. What
would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all of the co-authors to
positively respond, and have the posting fail if they don?t, or if any
responds negatively?
I think this would be overkill.
Of course it depends on the frequency of the times this happens. My
guess is a very small 0.001 or something like that percentage.
Otherwise we end up slowing down the submission process and make it
almost impossible to meet the deadline due to irresponsive co-authors.
One positive result could be that we get drafts with less number of authors
:-)
Behcet
This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I understand an
address changing in a later version of a draft
(someone(_at_)example1(_dot_)com becomes
someone+else(_at_)example2(_dot_)com) and being missed in a draft update,
but I don?t understand an incorrect address on the -00 version.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:35:57 +0000
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
To: Eric Gray <eric(_dot_)gray(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
Message-ID: <60B0D0FA-6A7C-4528-A3D7-6DFD36371DD3(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Eric Gray
<eric(_dot_)gray(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:
it would be possible to ambush a working group with a -00 draft that
makes the posting cut-off but is not available until the last possible
moment. All a person
would need to do is to hold off on confirming their authorship until then.
It seems that would work against the author of the draft.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/attachments/20150421/d195e713/attachment.asc>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:45:45 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>, Eric Gray
<eric(_dot_)gray(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
Message-ID: <0D0EF1A5C77E8DCE289755A8@JCK-EEE10>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--On Tuesday, 21 April, 2015 16:35 +0000 "Fred Baker (fred)"
<fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Eric Gray
<eric(_dot_)gray(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:
it would be possible to ambush a working group with a -00
draft that makes the posting cut-off but is not available
until the last possible moment. All a person would need to
do is to hold off on confirming their authorship until then.
It seems that would work against the author of the draft.
And WG Chairs have, IMO, more than enough authority to leave
drafts off agendas if there has not been enough time, in
practice, for the WG to consider them.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:52:53 +0000
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
To: "sarikaya(_at_)ieee(_dot_)org" <sarikaya(_at_)ieee(_dot_)org>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
Message-ID: <3CAEB1AB-CCDA-4D65-9C8E-70D8B78FBB2B(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Apr 21, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Behcet Sarikaya
<sarikaya2012(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
What is the percentage of drafts with such "co-authors"?
The available evidence is anecdotal.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/attachments/20150421/1ffaeb43/attachment.asc>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ietf mailing list
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
------------------------------
End of ietf Digest, Vol 83, Issue 61
************************************