how possibly could you conclude what my opinion might be as to RFCs 8446 & 2821? all I was doing is citing the rules that have been around for a long time (back at least to RFC 2026 - sec 10.3.1.4)
Scott > On Jun 8, 2026, at 8:48 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't disagree that there are documents that *do* provide detailed > contribution lists, but there is also quite a range of practice, including > documents which just list people without listing their contributions (RFC > 8446) and those which just gesture at a large population of people without > listing any of them, as in RFC 2821: > Many people worked long and hard on the many iterations of this > document. There was wide-ranging debate in the IETF DRUMS Working > Group, both on its mailing list and in face to face discussions, > about many technical issues and the role of a revised standard for > Internet mail transport, and many contributors helped form the > wording in this specification. The hundreds of participants in the > many discussions since RFC 821 was produced are too numerous to > mention, but they all helped this document become what it is. > What I'm asking here is what you believe this text actually *requires* in > terms of individually acknowledging contributions. Is your position that 8446 > and 2821 are in violation of BCP 78 in this respect? > > -Ekr > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 4:42 AM Scott Bradner <[email protected]> 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 > > > > > -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
