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.w...@surrey.ac.uk <l.w...@surrey.ac.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-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam > Baryun [abdussalambar...@gmail.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 >>> >> >
