On 8/15/2022 12:17 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Paul Wouters <[email protected]> writes:
This is why I also think 8624bis is better than a stand-alone document,
as it takes into account security effects, market deployment, and
trying to push the deployments to where we want it to go, instead of just
issuing a document the current deployments have no choice but to
ignore.
So, I took the liberty of stealing much text (as all good authors do).
I submitted a draft-hardaker-dnsop-rfc8624-bis leaving both you and
Ondrej as co-authors (because it would be extremely rude not to), and
I'm sure we can come to agreement about what the expected table entries
and text should look like.
One of the downsides to leaving them on the author list is the need to
involve them in the AUTH48 process. That can be painful if you're not
actually actively working the document even if you're the source of much
of the text.
Let me suggest you work this with you as the editor rather than leaving
them on unless they will be involved in the actual process of writing
substantial amounts of new text. Maybe include "This document is based
on text from RFC8624 authored by ...." in the introduction, and include
them as contributors later. Of course none of this applies if they're
going to be working the document.
I wish the IETF would come up with a standard way of doing this...
Mike
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
