Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

AB, I've been following this first with increasing amusement, ... not! A search on Baryun for IDs on the RFC Editors web page gives the following result: "o Based on your search of [Baryun] in the All Fields field zero matches were made." Time to terminate this "discussion"? /Loa On 2013-

It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)

> Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments > sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are > fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between. Bingo. It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they want to list in th

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

Personally, as a fairly active WG participant and reviewer, I would not expect an acknowledgement unless I contribute a significant new idea or a reasonable sized chunk of text. As an author or editor, my intention is to acknowledge people whose input led to new ideas or new text. Possibly, I'd ac

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

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://ww

Re: [manet] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-02.txt

Dear AB, I'm a little shocked on the amount of time we spent on this issue. I'll be brief: 1. The change on "threats on packet sequence number" is minimal. It's not a normative part of NHDP - even this section is removed, the draft won't change much. 2. Even for that change, with my short m

GenART LC review of draft-merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool-03

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool-03 Revie

Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)

Hi Carsten, In general, I agree we don't force authors/owners of documents, as tradition in the world and in all reasonable organisation, we never force any author to be thankful. But don't forget the situation in IETF is different and the documents are different as well. The document is a IETF

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

I have gave some feedback to some I+D authors, I have commented I+Ds on emailing lists, etc. but never with any expectation of being thanked by and ack in the I+D or even to include my comments if those are not supported by the authors or the WG. My only expectation to participate in the

Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)

On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:14 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments >> sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are >> fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between. > > Bingo. It is up to the sole d

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

On 3/25/13 1:11 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: > AB, > > I've been following this first with increasing amusement, ... not! > > A search on Baryun for IDs on the RFC Editors web page gives the > following result: > > "o Based on your search of [Baryun] in the All Fields field zero matches > were made

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

--On Monday, March 25, 2013 09:05 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 3/25/13 1:11 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: >> AB, >> >> I've been following this first with increasing amusement, >> ... not! >> >> A search on Baryun for IDs on the RFC Editors web page gives >> the following result: >> >> "o

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

Folks, There have been more than 25 postings on this sub-thread, and I don't see any indication that it covers a 'problem' in the IETF, or at least not one that has any constituency behind it. If this thread is supposed to accomplish more than assuage one person's concern, what is it and how

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

--On Monday, March 25, 2013 08:38 -0700 Dave Crocker wrote: > Folks, > > There have been more than 25 postings on this sub-thread, and > I don't see any indication that it covers a 'problem' in the > IETF, or at least not one that has any constituency behind it. Dave, I mostly agree with you

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

On Monday, March 25, 2013 11:54:10 AM John C Klensin wrote: > --On Monday, March 25, 2013 08:38 -0700 Dave Crocker > > wrote: > > Folks, > > > > There have been more than 25 postings on this sub-thread, and > > I don't see any indication that it covers a 'problem' in the > > IETF, or at least no

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

On 3/25/2013 8:54 AM, John C Klensin wrote: At the same time, a fairly wide range of beliefs and opinions about what and who should appear in acknowledgments has emerged, including the idea that acknowledgments can be used to "buy" participation or reviews. I personally find the latter idea ab

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

I will/may continue my draft work so you will expect -01 in future, the reason of let expire is just I got a little bussy with other private work, and sometimes with IETF requests. AB And, actually, this is more interesting. I don't follow MANET or ROLL, but the 2119 update got some discuss

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

On 03/25/13 11:54, "John C Klensin" allegedly wrote: >So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about >acknowledgments would be in order. or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not subject to IETF guidance.

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

On 3/25/13 8:17 AM, Scott Brim wrote: > or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not > subject to IETF guidance. Excellent. Melinda

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

On 2013-03-25, at 12:17, Scott Brim wrote: > On 03/25/13 11:54, "John C Klensin" allegedly wrote: >> So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about >> acknowledgments would be in order. > > or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not > subject to IETF guid

Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)

+1. My view as well. I will add I think it generally means there will a problem in a WG if an AUTHOR has issues with its WG participants, enough to a point he/she begins to ignore them - despite all the input they provided, included the indirect ones that help mold others to think and chime in

Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)

On Mar 25, 2013, at 15:38, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG >> consensus as the authors' street addresses. > > Disagree. WG documents are WG documents. If the author/editor doesn't want to > do what the WG consensus is about the d

Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)

It seems to me that you are setting up by assertion a standard that has never applied to this community. Having said that, if we want to go down this path, then we could do what groups like IEEE do. Remove all authors names, all personal acknowledgements, etc. The work is simply the product

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

--On Monday, March 25, 2013 11:59 -0400 Scott Kitterman wrote: >> So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about >> acknowledgments would be in order. If so, Abdussalam has done >> us something of a favor by raising the issue explicitly (no >> matter what various of us think of his

Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)

On 3/25/2013 9:35 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: The WG can decide to have a "contributors" section or whatever it wants. The acknowledgements section, however, is, very much like the street address, the authors' thing, and entirely up to their conscience. Sorry, no. It is not a collection of

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

> "Scott" == Scott Brim writes: Scott> On 03/25/13 11:54, "John C Klensin" allegedly wrote: >> So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about >> acknowledgments would be in order. Scott> or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section Scott> an

Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)

> "Dave" == Dave Crocker writes: Dave> Citing a 'contributors' section is invention on-the-fly. It's Dave> not irrational, but it is not established IETF practice. I believe contributors sections to be IETF practice. As an example take a look at http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.h

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

On 3/25/2013 12:17 PM, Scott Brim wrote: On 03/25/13 11:54, "John C Klensin" allegedly wrote: So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about acknowledgments would be in order. or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not subject to IETF guidance. or i

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

On Sun, 2013-03-24 at 22:23 -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I think I at least partly disagree. The acknowledgements section of > RFCs was not, and to the best of my knowledge is not, concerned with > capturing the history of where specific changes or ideas came from. It > ought to be concerne

"Acknowledgements" vs new Contributions section.

Interesting proposal. I suggest perhaps a different "Contributions" section related to IPR considerations, including also good for open source/public domain information. For me, this would be a quick/goto read item after reading a new I-D abstract of interest. Good idea. -- HLS On 3/25/

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > > My habit is to have the document source (and rendered copy) open on my screen > as I read and digest comments. If I make a change to the document following > someone's comment, I add them to the Acknowledgements section (and update the > chang

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

- Original Message - From: "Melinda Shore" To: Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 1:11 AM > > 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 >

RE: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

RFCs say how, but rarely why. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ Elwyn said > As regards 'history': RFCs record 'state' and not history. That isn't

Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > It seems to me that you are setting up by assertion a standard that has > never applied to this community. > > Having said that, if we want to go down this path, then we could do what > groups like IEEE do. Remove all authors names, all p

RE: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

Actually, as there's already a five-author limit on RFCs, acks are already subject to guidance... Did rfc2223bis expire? Section 2.12 there. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

On 3/25/13 1:57 PM, t.p. wrote: - Original Message - From: "Melinda Shore" To: Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 1:11 AM 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,

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

I believe the five-author limit is not as strict: (see, e.g., RFC6550) Ulrich On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:57 PM, wrote: > > Actually, as there's already a five-author limit on RFCs, acks are already > subject to guidance... > > Did rfc2223bis expire? Section 2.12 there. > > Lloyd Wood > http://sa

RE: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)

You mean going 'Chatham House rule'? (i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D recommending how to write acks, I get acked...) Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Beha

Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)

Hi Lloyd, On 03/25/2013 10:03 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: > (i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D > recommending how to write acks, I get acked...) Thanks! Yours is the first useful thing anyone's said in this thread that I recall. (Most previous mails made me

Re: [IETF] Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)

On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hi Lloyd, > > On 03/25/2013 10:03 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: >> (i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D >> recommending how to write acks, I get acked…) +1 W P.S: :-P > > Thanks! Yours is the first

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-06

On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:04 PM, "Black, David" wrote: > Summary: This draft is on the right track, but has open issues, described in > the review. While I identified the same issue you did with switching systems that do link aggregation and other magic, I think that the document is useful whether

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/25/13 9:35 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Monday, March 25, 2013 09:05 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre > wrote: > >> On 3/25/13 1:11 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: >>> AB, >>> >>> I've been following this first with increasing amusement, ... >>> not

Re: [pkix] Last Call: (X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP) to Proposed Standard

Martin, Whether we like it or not. This is the legacy. There is no way for a client to know whether the OCSP responder implements RFC 2560 only or in combination with RFC 5019. So therefore, the update that was introduced in 5019 must be expected by all clients from all responders. Therefore it i

Re: [pkix] Last Call: (X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP) to Proposed Standard

Stefan Santesson wrote: > > Whether we like it or not. This is the legacy. > There is no way for a client to know whether the OCSP responder implements > RFC 2560 only or in combination with RFC 5019. > > So therefore, the update that was introduced in 5019 must be expected by > all clients from