Thanks, Les, that is a perfectly good explanation. Ben.
> On Dec 19, 2018, at 10:26 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Ben - > > When Errata ID: 5293 was posted we quickly realized that we had an > interoperability issue due to the unintended ambiguousness of RFC 7810. In > order to help resolve this ASAP I volunteered to be editor of a bis version. > In that role I have tried my best to move this document along as quickly as > possible to help reduce the possibility that additional implementations might > come along that also did not behave as intended. (Has only taken 9 months so > far. :-) ) > > Given I was not one of the original authors of RFC 7810 - and that we were > not making any substantive revision to the text - merely correcting what was > just a cut and paste error - I did not feel it appropriate to remove any of > the authors of RFC 7810. After all 98% of the text is identical to RFC 7810. > > So, you have 6 authors on this document. I think this is reasonable under the > circumstances. > > Les > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ben Campbell <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 3:51 PM >> To: The IESG <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) >> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ketan >> Talaulikar (ketant) <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: >> (with COMMENT) >> >> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Why does this need to least more than the usual 5 authors, especially since >> there is already a contributors section that says the entries should be >> treated >> as co-authors? >> > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
