* IMO it's fine to contact the authors of an original RFC and point out
that an update is needed. But it's really presumptuous and rude to appoint
oneself a co-author of a bis document and suggest that the original authors
should become co-authors. IMO that should be a last resort option
On 5/31/21 3:37 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
* IMO it's fine to contact the authors of an original RFC and point
out that an update is needed. But it's really presumptuous and
rude to appoint oneself a co-author of a bis document and suggest
that the original authors should become co-au
Hi Keith,
the 6125-bis draft has not been yet been issued, even the -00 version, so it's
a bit early for you
to make conclusions on selecting its authors. I agree with you that it's best
if original
authors take part in authoring -bis document and that's why I suggested Rich to
contact
P
On 5/31/21 4:19 PM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
the 6125-bis draft has not been yet been issued, even the -00 version,
so it's a bit early for you
to make conclusions on selecting its authors. I agree with you that
it's best if original
authors take part in authoring -bis document and that's why
