On 6/6/13, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > It falls to me to make a call on this issue before the document moves on. > > Abdussalam has complained that he has not been acknowledged and has objected > to > the current text in section 8. > The authors have responded on the MANET list > >> We believe that only comments that lead to significant improvements of >> the draft deserve a listing in the acknowledgment section, and we have >> therefore not modified the section.
What was the WG decision? Why any contribution that influnces the I-D ideas is not acknowledged? IMO, if a technical-idea within the I-D was discovered wrong by a participant, or a new technical-idea added to I-D from an input, then the I-D should be acknowledged. > > I have reviewed the email threads on the MANET mailing list and do not > consider > that Abdussalam made contributions to the text of the document. Didn't that person make review and discovered errors? Why don't you consider discovering an error as a contribution? Why don't you consider providing new ideas a contribution? What is your definition to contribution? > I also > believe > that the comments he made did not advance the content of the document. So I understand that you need to have advance the content then you acknowledge. > Furthermore, per multiple references (such as RFC 2026) the > Acknowledgements > section is used to "properly acknowledge major contributors. I am trying to find that condition of *major contribution*, >" Normal IETF > business is to discuss not seek acknowledgement. Ideas, Comments and reviews are included in the discuss for drafts progress. Seeking acknowledgement is not wrong within IETF, but please consider *not acknowledging reviews* within IETF documents is not IETF culture (we are not paid so why you thinking much of the business, the IETF business will only progress with acknowledging the volunteers). > > I do not propose to do an explicit consensus call on whether Abdussalam > should > be named in this draft. IMO, it should have been done in the WG. AB > From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambar...@gmail.com] > Sent: 03 June 2013 17:10 > To: ietf > Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; i...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [manet] Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt> > (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC > > I would hope that IETF add my name in the acknowledgement section of the > I-D. I > complained to AD about that my efforts in WGLC was not acknowledged by > editors > even after my request, however, I did not stop reviewing (trying not be > discouraged) which I will complete on 6 June with the final comments. > Therefore, > this message (can be added as a comment on the I-D) is an objection to > section 8 > that ignores acknowledge input/review effort related to the I-D. > > AB >
