On 09-Jun-26 02:46, Scott Bradner wrote:
the problems you cite are not new just because of AI
Right, and the record shows that I for one have been concerned about this
as a matter of ethics since at least 2015. But also this discussion shows
that there's a need for wiggle room about what merits acknowledgement.
Please read the draft and suggest anywhere that more, or less, wiggle
room is needed.
Brian
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]
