the problems you cite are not new just because of AI Scott
> On Jun 8, 2026, at 8:35 AM, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > > Fair enough, but EKR raises a good point: what level of detail must an > acknowledgment be? And there's another question: what happens if someone > doesn't want to be acknowledged at all? > Eliot > On 08.06.2026 13:41, Scott Bradner wrote: >> an example - RFC 2149 >> >> 7 Acknowledgements >> >> We would like to acknowledge Grenville Armitage (Bellcore) for >> reviewing the document and suggesting improvements towards >> simplifying the multiple MCS functionalities. Discussion with Joel >> Halpern (Newbridge) helped clarify the multiple MCS problem. Anthony >> Gallo (IBM RTP) pointed out security issues that are not adequately >> addressed in the current document. Arvind Murching (Microsoft) >> flagged a potential show stopper in section 4.1.2. >> >> (there are rather many more) >> >> >>> On Jun 8, 2026, at 7:35 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 5:35 PM Scott Bradner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 7, 2026, at 7:52 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> 1. This text is purely about contributors duty to the IETF, not about what >>>> appears in RFCs. It's entirely consistent with this text for an RFC to >>>> contain no acknowledgements of any names besides the author, even if all >>>> the work is from others. So, at most this would require indivian example - >>>> RFC 21duals to identify AI assistance at the time of contribution. >>>> >>> huh >>> >>> the rule says "The Contribution properly acknowledges all Contributors" - >>> i.e >>> text in the contribution lists the contributors - unless the text is remove >>> it would >>> appear in the RFC (and this editor of the rule expects that to be the case) >>> >>> I think this is overreading the text quite a bit, but perhaps it would be >>> more useful to try a worked example. For example, RFC 5378 itself >>> has the following acknowledgement: The editors would like to acknowledge >>> the help the IETF IPR Working >>> Group provided during the development of the document. >>> I take it you believe that this is an acceptable acknowledgement, even >>> though it does not list any person by name? What level of contribution >>> do you believe would require someone to be named individually? >>> >>> -Ekr >>> >>> >>> >> > <OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc> -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
