All, We haven’t had any problems with this in the OSPF WG but I’ll repost never-the-less. Thanks, Acee
>-----Original Message----- >From: IETF-Announce [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >The IESG >Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:32 PM >To: IETF Announcement List >Subject: IESG Statement on Internet Draft Authorship > >The IESG has received some reports of IETF participants having been >listed as document authors on drafts without their consent ("surprised >authorship"). In some cases, the surprised authors had never seen the >draft that surprised them. It appears that some draft authors think that >including other participants as authors is a way to show support for the >concepts in the document and gain acceptance for those concepts. This >may be thought of as especially useful if the additional authors are >established IETF participants. > >Adding names of IETF participants who did not actually work on a >proposal might seem to be a low-risk way of demonstrating "support", but >this is very clearly not an acceptable practice: no one should ever be >added to the list of authors on a draft unless that person has consented >to it and has contributed significantly to the development of the draft. > >The practice of adding surprised authors is > > - not in line with the IETF culture, where it's the technical issues > that matter, not who the authors or supporters are; > - unethical, as it is wrong to claim support from someone who has not > consented to it; > - misleading in terms of support; and > - problematic in terms of IPR disclosures (BCPs 78 and 79). > >To emphasize this last point, the person submitting an Internet-Draft is >asserting that "This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance >with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79". A submitter who has not >discussed this with all the listed authors cannot make that claim, and >this can cause procedural and legal problems later. > >All authors need to be aware of the RFC Editor's statement on >authorship [1], especially as it relates to responsibility for the >document's contents. The IESG strongly recommends that all drafts have >explicit permission from all authors to have their names listed before >the draft is submitted. > >If you feel that you are impacted by the above issues, please talk to >your Area Director or contact the IESG by sending email to ><i...@ietf.org>. As the administrator of the I-D repository (regardless >of the source or intended stream for the draft), the IESG will handle >each case of disputed authorship on a case-by-base basis. All reports >will be investigated, and substantiated claims will be met with >corrective actions. > >The default corrective action will be the replacement of the offending >draft with a "disputed authorship" tombstone. Such a tombstone would: > > - Be published as a successor to the offending draft, > - Have the offended IETF participant listed as the only author, > - Will state "The author listed on this tombstone Internet-Draft has > stated that he/she should not have been listed as an author on the > previous version. The IETF considers being added as an author > without one's permission as unethical. The default behaviour of the > IESG in such cases is to approve replacement of the offending draft > with this tombstone. Please direct any queries to the author listed > here." > >[1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2015-May/008869.html > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
