Re: Changing the value of RFCs not numbers (was Re: The RFC Acknowledgement)
On Feb 12, 2013, at 2:57 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: Many said to me before as you do RFC don't change, it is already known in any org that documents don't change when published. I think the reason this keeps coming up, is that the IETF documents are usually referenced by number rather than title. So you'd say that your system is compliant with RFC 5280 rather than saying that it is compliant with Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile. In other organizations, like the W3C, documents are referred to by name. So Content Security Policy 1.0 is called that when it's proposed, when it's discussed, and when it's published. Even a later revision might be called Content Security Policy 1.1, so version numbers, while they exist and are accessible, are mostly hidden from the users. Yoav
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
On Feb 10, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote: I have been told anecdotally that some companies or organizations provide bonuses or bounties of different values for employees that get their names on a ID or RFC as document editor, author, co-author or contributor (in the acknowledgements section). I'm not sure of the reality with respect to this anecdote, but I'd hate to find some sort of mandatory thank you being required which might result in additional comments that add little or nothing to the process simply so someone can get a bonus. It's simply not the IETF way. I agree with everything you've said, and would happily prepare a cover page with both our names so that I can share in the credit for having said so. Seriously, commenting on drafts is just a part of the work process, a part of the social contract of the IETF. People making minor comments on a draft shouldn't expect to be acknowledged in the draft for that contribution to the draft, any more than the pigeons unloading on a park statue should get acknowledged on the plaque for their contribution to the sculpture. There are plenty of RFCs out there for which I've made large investments of time (say, over 10 hours, perhaps as many as 200 hours) that don't mention me. That's OK. Usually, if I have to work that hard on a draft, it was so bad that I really don't want my name on the final product anyhow ;-). After all, the purpose of having a name on top of the draft is to know who to blame for the content, which helps in predicting the value of their future contributions. Anonymity can actually boost one's credibility in such circumstances. -- Dean Willis
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
Hi Abdussalam, Eric Burger provided some information about acknowledgements in a message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77076.html Fred Baker shared his perspective in a message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71104.html At 23:47 10-02-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Then from your opinion to be fare, I RECOMMEND that the RFC-section SHOULD be changed to *Authors' Acknowledgements*. Please note that the RFC is owned by the IETF so the section of ACK should not be only thanks of the authors or editors or Chairs, otherwise SHOULD be mentioned in title. IETF considers all inputs related to I-D as a contribution, please read the NOTE WELL. So do we understand that IETF is impolite with some of its contributors/workers? I don't see anything in RFCs to point to the fact that the RFC is owned by the IETF. The Note Well is about keeping the lawyers happy. I don't see what it has to do with impolite. If your name has been missed in the Acknowledgements Section you could send a message to the author, with a copy to the document shepherd, about that. It is not about bonuses, it is about truth I-D's influences and the way the IETF process and work progresses. Do you think an I-D progresses only if experts comment and contribute? don't think so, best ideas come from discussions of different level of experiences including zero, :-) This is what I saw in a draft: The authors would like to thank Christian Jacquenet, Tim Winter, Pieter De Mil, David Meyer and Abdussalam Baryun for their valuable feed-back. I note that there is only one person listed as an author. If I suggest removing the s from author, should I be mentioned in the Acknowledgements Section? There was a Last Call for draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-10. There can be a DISCUSS on that draft because of an insignificant detail [1]. I don't really know whether it's worth an acknowledgement. Thomas Heide Clausen commented [2] about draft-cardenas-dff-09 [4]. I don't know the person (zero reputation). You also posted a review [3]. The first review is clearer. Regards, -sm 1. My guess is that the reviewer will catch it. 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77078.html 3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77089.html 4. I glanced at the draft. Section 2.2 is about terminology. Section 14.1.1 also mentions terminology. There are different definitions for Address.
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
I have not followed all of this thread but, in case someone had not already mentioned it, acknowledging major contributors is required, but not lessor contributors (that is left up to the authors) see RFC 3978 section 3.4. a Scott On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:28 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: Hi Abdussalam, Eric Burger provided some information about acknowledgements in a message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77076.html Fred Baker shared his perspective in a message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71104.html At 23:47 10-02-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Then from your opinion to be fare, I RECOMMEND that the RFC-section SHOULD be changed to *Authors' Acknowledgements*. Please note that the RFC is owned by the IETF so the section of ACK should not be only thanks of the authors or editors or Chairs, otherwise SHOULD be mentioned in title. IETF considers all inputs related to I-D as a contribution, please read the NOTE WELL. So do we understand that IETF is impolite with some of its contributors/workers? I don't see anything in RFCs to point to the fact that the RFC is owned by the IETF. The Note Well is about keeping the lawyers happy. I don't see what it has to do with impolite. If your name has been missed in the Acknowledgements Section you could send a message to the author, with a copy to the document shepherd, about that. It is not about bonuses, it is about truth I-D's influences and the way the IETF process and work progresses. Do you think an I-D progresses only if experts comment and contribute? don't think so, best ideas come from discussions of different level of experiences including zero, :-) This is what I saw in a draft: The authors would like to thank Christian Jacquenet, Tim Winter, Pieter De Mil, David Meyer and Abdussalam Baryun for their valuable feed-back. I note that there is only one person listed as an author. If I suggest removing the s from author, should I be mentioned in the Acknowledgements Section? There was a Last Call for draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-10. There can be a DISCUSS on that draft because of an insignificant detail [1]. I don't really know whether it's worth an acknowledgement. Thomas Heide Clausen commented [2] about draft-cardenas-dff-09 [4]. I don't know the person (zero reputation). You also posted a review [3]. The first review is clearer. Regards, -sm 1. My guess is that the reviewer will catch it. 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77078.html 3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77089.html 4. I glanced at the draft. Section 2.2 is about terminology. Section 14.1.1 also mentions terminology. There are different definitions for Address.
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
SM, (it is generally appreciated in the IETF to use real first and last name). Generally, I think the topic has been well summarized by Fred and others, and I don't see how continuing it would generate new value. See below: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: [...] Thomas Heide Clausen commented [2] about draft-cardenas-dff-09 [4]. I don't know the person (zero reputation). You also posted a review [3]. The first review is clearer. [...] 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77078.html 3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77089.html 4. I glanced at the draft. Section 2.2 is about terminology. Section 14.1.1 also mentions terminology. There are different definitions for Address. I am not sure what this is about because it does not seem related to this discussion. But since I am the editor of the mentioned document, I still wonder what you mean but the person [has] zero reputation. There is a related topic on this mailing list about the mentioned draft, so I suggest sending your comments as reply to that thread. Best Ulrich
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
SM, (it is generally appreciated in the IETF to use real first and last name). Hi, Ulrich. This is actually a very cultural issue. I'll point out that in U.S. culture it's common for people named William to go by Bill, or for people to regularly use nicknames such as Bud or Woody. Do we call those real names? For south Asians, Thais, and others with very long names, it's culturally common to use abbreviations -- someone named Gopalakrishnan might be Gopal, and use of initials is common. SM is well known here by his initials, and switching to Subramanian Moonesamy won't benefit anyone. He knows the IETF culture as well as his own, and SM is perfectly fine, and is what we know him by. Does that help? Barry
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
Hi SM, thanks for your email, my reply inline; On 2/11/13, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: Hi Abdussalam, Eric Burger provided some information about acknowledgements in a message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77076.html Fred Baker shared his perspective in a message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71104.html I agree with them and never disagreed, I just gave a point of view, At 23:47 10-02-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Then from your opinion to be fare, I RECOMMEND that the RFC-section SHOULD be changed to *Authors' Acknowledgements*. Please note that the RFC is owned by the IETF so the section of ACK should not be only thanks of the authors or editors or Chairs, otherwise SHOULD be mentioned in title. IETF considers all inputs related to I-D as a contribution, please read the NOTE WELL. So do we understand that IETF is impolite with some of its contributors/workers? I don't see anything in RFCs to point to the fact that the RFC is owned by the IETF. The Note Well is about keeping the lawyers happy. I don't see what it has to do with impolite. If your name has been missed in the Acknowledgements Section you could send a message to the author, with a copy to the document shepherd, about that. Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has no right to edit/amend a document that it is publishing? I misunderstand your point, It is not about bonuses, it is about truth I-D's influences and the way the IETF process and work progresses. Do you think an I-D progresses only if experts comment and contribute? don't think so, best ideas come from discussions of different level of experiences including zero, :-) This is what I saw in a draft: The authors would like to thank Christian Jacquenet, Tim Winter, Pieter De Mil, David Meyer and Abdussalam Baryun for their valuable feed-back. I note that there is only one person listed as an author. If I suggest removing the s from author, should I be mentioned in the Acknowledgements Section? No you should not be acknowledged only because any author in world will answer that in same way, and the one who suggest a changes already knows as the author when an Ack is recommended. There was a Last Call for draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-10. There can be a DISCUSS on that draft because of an insignificant detail [1]. I don't really know whether it's worth an acknowledgement. Yes I think it may be worth, because we want to encourage reviews and discussions, we want to increase participation (please note that there is very low participation in IETF per draft if you compare with number of authors of drafts). I am not sure why people try to avoid thanking others for their significant TIME given. Your reply and others are concerned more about the details of significant of change in I-D but I am more concerned of both. Thomas Heide Clausen commented [2] about draft-cardenas-dff-09 [4]. I don't know the person (zero reputation). You also posted a review [3]. The first review is clearer. These reviews can be out of the authors' acknowledgement because usually it was a reply to IESG-request, the IESG should Ack the reviewers if they are following polite practices. In addition, thoes reviews were last-call review/input but if there was an amendment resulted I recommend it will be nice to document it in Ack. Usually authors (of WG I-Ds or Individual I-Ds) start asking participants to review and give comments because they want draft-reputation (drafts reputation is needed to be discovered not participants reputations), so if there was one replying to an author to reveiw what do you think the right think to do? The answer is to say thanks :) The Requester SHOULD ACK the Replier when the Requester receives the message/action requested (Even Machines do ACK each other, when they request). Thanks for your feedback AB 1. My guess is that the reviewer will catch it. 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77078.html 3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77089.html 4. I glanced at the draft. Section 2.2 is about terminology. Section 14.1.1 also mentions terminology. There are different definitions for Address.
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
Alright, it's not important for this discussion anyway; just ignore my comment. Ulrich Sent from my iPhone On Feb 11, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: SM, (it is generally appreciated in the IETF to use real first and last name). Hi, Ulrich. This is actually a very cultural issue. I'll point out that in U.S. culture it's common for people named William to go by Bill, or for people to regularly use nicknames such as Bud or Woody. Do we call those real names? For south Asians, Thais, and others with very long names, it's culturally common to use abbreviations -- someone named Gopalakrishnan might be Gopal, and use of initials is common. SM is well known here by his initials, and switching to Subramanian Moonesamy won't benefit anyone. He knows the IETF culture as well as his own, and SM is perfectly fine, and is what we know him by. Does that help? Barry
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
On 2/11/13 2:34 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Hi SM, thanks for your email, my reply inline; On 2/11/13, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: Hi Abdussalam, Eric Burger provided some information about acknowledgements in a message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77076.html Fred Baker shared his perspective in a message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71104.html I agree with them and never disagreed, I just gave a point of view, At 23:47 10-02-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Then from your opinion to be fare, I RECOMMEND that the RFC-section SHOULD be changed to *Authors' Acknowledgements*. Please note that the RFC is owned by the IETF so the section of ACK should not be only thanks of the authors or editors or Chairs, otherwise SHOULD be mentioned in title. IETF considers all inputs related to I-D as a contribution, please read the NOTE WELL. So do we understand that IETF is impolite with some of its contributors/workers? I don't see anything in RFCs to point to the fact that the RFC is owned by the IETF. The Note Well is about keeping the lawyers happy. I don't see what it has to do with impolite. If your name has been missed in the Acknowledgements Section you could send a message to the author, with a copy to the document shepherd, about that. Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has no right to edit/amend a document that it is publishing? I misunderstand your point, Once an RFC number is issued and the document published, the content of that RFC never changes. See RFC 2200 section 2
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
On 2/12/13, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has no right to edit/amend a document that it is publishing? I misunderstand your point, Once an RFC number is issued and the document published, the content of that RFC never changes. See RFC 2200 section 2 I agree, but still IETF can update or obsolete any document, The question ment to be: Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has no right to edit/amend a document that will be published? AB
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
On 2/11/13 3:32 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: On 2/12/13, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has no right to edit/amend a document that it is publishing? I misunderstand your point, Once an RFC number is issued and the document published, the content of that RFC never changes. See RFC 2200 section 2 I agree, but still IETF can update or obsolete any document, A consensus driven working group process can be used by IETF participants to produce a new RFC which updates or obsoletes an existing document. The existing document does not change. ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt looks the same as in 1982. The question ment to be: Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has no right to edit/amend a document that will be published? Authors grant rights under the terms of the provisions in force at the time of publication. Not some unspecified set of rules in the future. So variously none, 1310, 1602, 2026, 3978, 4748 and the IETF Trust Licensing Policy. AB
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement (off-topic)
Hi Ulrich, At 13:25 11-02-2013, Ulrich Herberg wrote: (it is generally appreciated in the IETF to use real first and last name). Agreed. Your comment reminded me of the message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep/current/msg00085.html Generally, I think the topic has been well summarized by Fred and others, and I don't see how continuing it would generate new value. See below: Agreed. I am not sure what this is about because it does not seem related to this discussion. But since I am the editor of the mentioned document, It was a gentle note to one of the authors (see Note 4). I pointed to two reviews about a draft and mentioned that the first one was clearer to me. I still wonder what you mean but the person [has] zero reputation. There is a related topic on this mailing list about the mentioned draft, so I suggest sending your comments as reply to that thread. I agree that it is better to stick to the topic. I'll answer in here as to avoid generating two messages. I meant that I have never interacted with the person through email or in person. There is less bias [1]. The content of the message matters; it does not matter who wrote it. Regards, -sm 1. www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mckinley/notes/snodgrass-tods-2007.pdf
Changing the value of RFCs not numbers (was Re: The RFC Acknowledgement)
Many said to me before as you do RFC don't change, it is already known in any org that documents don't change when published. Even author's drafts in IETF don't change but are updated by new versions or new names, this is progress of doc process in IETF. The RFCs can be rewritten and obsolete the old RFC, so no more use of the old one, we use the new one for progress. My understanding is that the RFC-ideas and RFC-effects in the Internet may change. The RFC-document is just a reference, what is important is its specification usefulness and the reputation to be used (some RFCs are not used). Therefore, in my point of view the value of any RFC may change in future, but the number of RFC and publications never changes, AB ++ On 2/12/13, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 2/11/13 3:32 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: On 2/12/13, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has no right to edit/amend a document that it is publishing? I misunderstand your point, Once an RFC number is issued and the document published, the content of that RFC never changes. See RFC 2200 section 2 I agree, but still IETF can update or obsolete any document, A consensus driven working group process can be used by IETF participants to produce a new RFC which updates or obsoletes an existing document. The existing document does not change. ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt looks the same as in 1982. The question ment to be: Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has no right to edit/amend a document that will be published? Authors grant rights under the terms of the provisions in force at the time of publication. Not some unspecified set of rules in the future. So variously none, 1310, 1602, 2026, 3978, 4748 and the IETF Trust Licensing Policy. AB
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement (off-topic)
Alright, thanks Ulrich On Feb 11, 2013, at 15:36, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: Hi Ulrich, At 13:25 11-02-2013, Ulrich Herberg wrote: (it is generally appreciated in the IETF to use real first and last name). Agreed. Your comment reminded me of the message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep/current/msg00085.html Generally, I think the topic has been well summarized by Fred and others, and I don't see how continuing it would generate new value. See below: Agreed. I am not sure what this is about because it does not seem related to this discussion. But since I am the editor of the mentioned document, It was a gentle note to one of the authors (see Note 4). I pointed to two reviews about a draft and mentioned that the first one was clearer to me. I still wonder what you mean but the person [has] zero reputation. There is a related topic on this mailing list about the mentioned draft, so I suggest sending your comments as reply to that thread. I agree that it is better to stick to the topic. I'll answer in here as to avoid generating two messages. I meant that I have never interacted with the person through email or in person. There is less bias [1]. The content of the message matters; it does not matter who wrote it. Regards, -sm 1. www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mckinley/notes/snodgrass-tods-2007.pdf
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
AB, On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: On 2/12/13, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has no right to edit/amend a document that it is publishing? I misunderstand your point, Once an RFC number is issued and the document published, the content of that RFC never changes. See RFC 2200 section 2 I agree, but still IETF can update or obsolete any document, The question ment to be: Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has no right to edit/amend a document that will be published? The IETF has the right to make derivative works. That is, use the contents of an RFC to publish a new one. We can also file errata, declare an RFC historic, etc. Bob
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
Hi Dale, thanks for your feedback. some comment below, On 2/10/13, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote: I believe that you are examining this problem from the point of view of a reviewer (and possible contributor) to a document, rather than the point of view of a document author. That is, your question is When can I expect a document author to include an Acknowledgment of my review? Yes, usually the I-D is always about the author's point of view ignoring others, but only great authors want people feedback to have doc communicate with the reader, In practice, that depends on the judgment the document author; does the document author feel that you have made a significant contribution to the document? I agree that it is responsibility of owners or authors. In IETF the I-D may be a WG I-D so the group work together to feel what is best, In general, even if an outside observer would say that you contributed significantly to a document, it can appear impolite to explicitly request that your name be added to the Acknowledgments section. It depends on who is acknowledging (ACK), is it the authors or the WG, or any, In the I-D ACK section, it can mention that IESG acknowledges smith, the IETF acknowledge the ITU, the authors acknowledge RFC333 authors, the WG acknowledge Saley, etc. Also depend on *why* the acknowledge section. Authors don't only ACK because of significant contributions, that is impolite too. In most documents in the world authors may thank their son even if he had no direct contribution but because the authors were working at home (a volunteering space) they felt to ACK their son, because of his good influences on work. In IETF it is all about discussions and comments for its I-Ds and RFCs, new comers' participation make the discussions valueable in my opinion, A participant that still did not complete a year working for IETF, but trying to continue :) My belief is that one must participate in the IETF fairly intensively for six months to a year before one can gain a reputation as being a knowledgeable contributor. After all, most of the people authoring documents have been participating for several years -- and they already know each other. Before you have gained that reputation, it may be difficult to get people to pay attention to your contributions, even if they are objectively valuable. I describe the rule in the IETF as Everyone may speak; not everyone is listened to. You need to prove yourself to be a person worth listening to. I agree, but we should n't ignore voices of new participants, and don't ignore people that are listening and never participate. Much useful advice on this subject is contained in RFC 4144, How to Gain Prominence and Influence in Standards Organizations. Thanks for that advice, My experience is that one can learn how to get more respect in an organization by occasionally asking more experienced people how to do so. One method that works in most organizations is to volunteer for the thankless tasks. In any organization, there are tasks that are acknowledged as necessary, they are unpleasant to do, and people who do it are not rewarded commensurately for doing them. (Reviewing drafts is one of them in the IETF.) However, if you develop a reputation as a person who does these tasks, it will increase the respect you receive. Your right, however, just to add that I don't participate in IETF to make reputation, because I think it is not a place for reputation, I try to participate to volunteer in the Internet Community to add to my Internet knowledge and others, thanks alot for all your comments and advice :) AB
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
A couple of points here: In practice, that depends on the judgment the document author; does the document author feel that you have made a significant contribution to the document? I agree that it is responsibility of owners or authors. In IETF the I-D may be a WG I-D so the group work together to feel what is best, This actually varies. Working groups will sometimes direct authors/editors on what should be in the Acknowledgments section, but more often it's left to the judgment of the authors/editors -- it's their section. And, yes, authors sometimes include family, departed colleagues, and even software (This document was prepared using xml2rfc version x.y.z.). Also depend on *why* the acknowledge section. Authors don't only ACK because of significant contributions ... In IETF it is all about discussions and comments for its I-Ds and RFCs, new comers' participation make the discussions valueable in my opinion, Read carefully what Dale said: he did not say contributed significant text, but made a significant contribution. We very often acknowledge people who gave particularly useful reviews, had particularly important roles in discussions, contributed ideas, and such. It's about how the document got to where it is, so, yes, discussions and comments, and newbies as well as grey-beards. My belief is that one must participate in the IETF fairly intensively for six months to a year before one can gain a reputation as being a knowledgeable contributor. After all, most of the people authoring documents have been participating for several years -- and they already know each other. Before you have gained that reputation, it may be difficult to get people to pay attention to your contributions, even if they are objectively valuable. I describe the rule in the IETF as Everyone may speak; not everyone is listened to. You need to prove yourself to be a person worth listening to. I agree, but we should n't ignore voices of new participants, and don't ignore people that are listening and never participate. Absolutely, and no one here purposefully ignores the voices of new participants. Dale is speaking not about what *should* happen, but what our human nature is: we naturally pay closer attention to people we already know and respect, whose contributions have previously been shown to be valuable. New participants who understand this and join the community with an eye toward showing their value in that way (as Dale noted, see RFC 4144) are accepted more quickly. In an ideal world, if the first word you post to a mailing list is useful, you should be acknowledged, praised, and accepted. Normal human social interactions work against that, unfortunately. Your right, however, just to add that I don't participate in IETF to make reputation, because I think it is not a place for reputation, I try to participate to volunteer in the Internet Community to add to my Internet knowledge and others, You aren't seeking reputation in the world at large, no... but you must develop a good reputation among the other IETF participants -- that's what Dale's saying. It's that human nature thing. You want to get to a place where people say, When AB says something, pay attention, because he's usually right. We all have people like that in our areas of expertise, and we all know who they are. Barry
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
Notice 4144 has no acknowledgements except for the RFC editor sponsorship. :) Most I see is common sense, but my view, in my somewhat limited work areas I have participating in, it doesn't matter if the editor/author doesn't like you. I guess that would be the exception. I think overall 4144 doesn't quite consider the part time IETF warrior, such as myself. Even if you could practice 4414 (except maybe not attend IETF meetings yet which you have stated is basically required to get people to feel comfortable with you), be 100% instructmental in the genesis of getting work and even RFCs initiatiated and done and yet no acknowledgements (acks) of your input is recognized. Again, not a big thing for me. I am not looking for a pat on the back (its already sore from my earlier years). Its not something I would normally expect to be thinking about. I'm an engineer first and normally just hope to avoid conflicts, including potential conflicts. To me, Getting it right The First Time is the most important quality to look for in work. But I have to say, I still not uset to the IETF competitive nature inherently has. 4144 touches base with some of this, in regards to making sure you can communicate with others. But I'm from a schoole where it should be a natural professional action of working with your peers at all levels, that basically dictates the work done. Nonetheless, its all seems to be on the editor 99% of the time. Sometimes it seems random. Sometimes it intentionally and strategically prepared. I've seen acks where I never notice any input in a WG yet the name(s) was added most likely to add some endorsement value. Which is not a bad idea - its what I will look for as well. But to exclude critics is a questionable decision. I can understand why as well, but readers seeing the critics can often add weight to the higher level of review done. Personally, if I didn't agree with an I-D or its direction, I have asked the Editor to remove my name. I've done that twice. Twice I have reminded editors; one added it and the other basically decided against the request. Can't worry about that. I feel it usually comes back to the person in some form or another. Thats becomes a personal thing only which is probably not the norm when considering these things. Overall what the Editor/Author feels adds value to the document, and how it can help it reach the next stage, SHOULD be a big part of the considerations. Endorsement value should be a big part of it. It helps readers to see respected technical people who have reviewed docs, including known critics whether you respect their credentials or not, are PITA or otherwise. If the EDITOR needs to exclude input from critics, the doc probably has a problem in the first place. - Original Message - From: Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org To: Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com Cc: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 8:54 AM Subject: Re: The RFC Acknowledgement A couple of points here: In practice, that depends on the judgment the document author; does the document author feel that you have made a significant contribution to the document? I agree that it is responsibility of owners or authors. In IETF the I-D may be a WG I-D so the group work together to feel what is best, This actually varies. Working groups will sometimes direct authors/editors on what should be in the Acknowledgments section, but more often it's left to the judgment of the authors/editors -- it's their section. And, yes, authors sometimes include family, departed colleagues, and even software (This document was prepared using xml2rfc version x.y.z.). Also depend on *why* the acknowledge section. Authors don't only ACK because of significant contributions ... In IETF it is all about discussions and comments for its I-Ds and RFCs, new comers' participation make the discussions valueable in my opinion, Read carefully what Dale said: he did not say contributed significant text, but made a significant contribution. We very often acknowledge people who gave particularly useful reviews, had particularly important roles in discussions, contributed ideas, and such. It's about how the document got to where it is, so, yes, discussions and comments, and newbies as well as grey-beards. My belief is that one must participate in the IETF fairly intensively for six months to a year before one can gain a reputation as being a knowledgeable contributor. After all, most of the people authoring documents have been participating for several years -- and they already know each other. Before you have gained that reputation, it may be difficult to get people to pay attention to your contributions, even if they are objectively valuable. I describe the rule in the IETF as Everyone may speak; not everyone is listened to. You need to prove yourself to be a person worth listening
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
At 11:04 PM 2/8/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: The problem is that most people don't complain or don't like to complain, that is reality, they will leave such society easily. Are we talking about the same IETF? Seriously, this group as a whole does not tend to shy away from making their issues known, and mostly doesn't take their bat and ball and leave if things don't go their way. I'm joining this thread a little late (I have read the later comments) and I want to push back on pretty much any formal requirement or common model for including people in the acknowledgements sections. I believe this needs to be left to the document editor and to the chair, and for individual contributions, never pushed to an AD for resolution. I have been told anecdotally that some companies or organizations provide bonuses or bounties of different values for employees that get their names on a ID or RFC as document editor, author, co-author or contributor (in the acknowledgements section). I'm not sure of the reality with respect to this anecdote, but I'd hate to find some sort of mandatory thank you being required which might result in additional comments that add little or nothing to the process simply so someone can get a bonus. It's simply not the IETF way. Mike
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
On 2/10/13, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote: At 11:04 PM 2/8/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: The problem is that most people don't complain or don't like to complain, that is reality, they will leave such society easily. Are we talking about the same IETF? Yes, IETF considers all inputs even if accidently are contributions, read the NOTE WELL. Seriously, this group as a whole does not tend to shy away from making their issues known, and mostly doesn't take their bat and ball and leave if things don't go their way. not leave if things don't go their way, they leave if things don't go in the right/fare direction. Do you mean all contributors in IETF (i.e. who discuss and make input even if not significant) like to continue participating? people leave only when they find out that their volunteering input things may go in the ways of profit sectors. I'm joining this thread a little late (I have read the later comments) and I want to push back on pretty much any formal requirement or common model for including people in the acknowledgements sections. I believe this needs to be left to the document editor and to the chair, and for individual contributions, never pushed to an AD for resolution. Then from your opinion to be fare, I RECOMMEND that the RFC-section SHOULD be changed to *Authors' Acknowledgements*. Please note that the RFC is owned by the IETF so the section of ACK should not be only thanks of the authors or editors or Chairs, otherwise SHOULD be mentioned in title. IETF considers all inputs related to I-D as a contribution, please read the NOTE WELL. So do we understand that IETF is impolite with some of its contributors/workers? I have been told anecdotally that some companies or organizations provide bonuses or bounties of different values for employees that get their names on a ID or RFC as document editor, author, co-author or contributor (in the acknowledgements section). I'm not sure of the reality with respect to this anecdote, but I'd hate to find some sort of mandatory thank you being required which might result in additional comments that add little or nothing to the process simply so someone can get a bonus. It's simply not the IETF way. It is not about bonuses, it is about truth I-D's influences and the way the IETF process and work progresses. Do you think an I-D progresses only if experts comment and contribute? don't think so, best ideas come from discussions of different level of experiences including zero, :-) We are in the IETF which has a NOTE WELL, do you suggest to change it or change the IETF ways of using others information? I don't want to change that. IMO a *thank you* for IETF participants SHOULD be a good practice for IETF and its outputs or documents, because it reflects reality. AB
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
Abduussalam - You probably have seen many responses to your message talking about who goes into the Acknowledgements section. However, I am not sure your original question was answered. In short, it is the document editor that puts the acknowledgments section in. In most cases it will be obvious who gets listed there. That is the substance of the other messages on this thread. In rare cases a work group chair may get involved. As you are new, if you are a document editor, you can always ask your work group chair for guidance. Conversely, if you feel you should be in an acknowledgements section for your contributions, feel free to talk with the document editor (first) and work group chair (second) - Eric On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:11 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: Hi folks, I am wondering how author/ietf-editor fill in the acknowledgement section in the RFCs or I-Ds. Does it make sense in IETF, or left for author opinion? I am getting requests from IETF WGs, IESG, and IAB for comments. My question is do you *make acknowledgements* in I-Ds or just *take comments* for I-Ds? IMO we get last call request for comments because RFC production is all about getting volunteering comments from Internet community to make I-Ds better, so does all I-Ds acknowledge (ACK) to any input comment before the last call and after or it is only before last call?, and if it gets submitted to IESG/IAB, and we comment does that have no ACK in I-D? I sometimes feel discouraged to participate in any world work if the process does not involve my existance, just used with ignoring ACK of the reviewers. IMO any comment has value to the authors (e.g. some think only experts' comments are important to ACK) and to IETF, otherwise, we may delete valuable ACKs in IETF, which is not right. Best Regards AB A participant that still did not complete a year working for IETF, but trying to continue :)
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
From: Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com I sometimes feel discouraged to participate in any world work if the process does not involve my existance, just used with ignoring ACK of the reviewers. IMO any comment has value to the authors (e.g. some think only experts' comments are important to ACK) and to IETF, otherwise, we may delete valuable ACKs in IETF, which is not right. Hi Abdussalam, I believe that you are examining this problem from the point of view of a reviewer (and possible contributor) to a document, rather than the point of view of a document author. That is, your question is When can I expect a document author to include an Acknowledgment of my review? In practice, that depends on the judgment the document author; does the document author feel that you have made a significant contribution to the document? In general, even if an outside observer would say that you contributed significantly to a document, it can appear impolite to explicitly request that your name be added to the Acknowledgments section. A participant that still did not complete a year working for IETF, but trying to continue :) My belief is that one must participate in the IETF fairly intensively for six months to a year before one can gain a reputation as being a knowledgeable contributor. After all, most of the people authoring documents have been participating for several years -- and they already know each other. Before you have gained that reputation, it may be difficult to get people to pay attention to your contributions, even if they are objectively valuable. I describe the rule in the IETF as Everyone may speak; not everyone is listened to. You need to prove yourself to be a person worth listening to. Much useful advice on this subject is contained in RFC 4144, How to Gain Prominence and Influence in Standards Organizations. My experience is that one can learn how to get more respect in an organization by occasionally asking more experienced people how to do so. One method that works in most organizations is to volunteer for the thankless tasks. In any organization, there are tasks that are acknowledged as necessary, they are unpleasant to do, and people who do it are not rewarded commensurately for doing them. (Reviewing drafts is one of them in the IETF.) However, if you develop a reputation as a person who does these tasks, it will increase the respect you receive. Dale
The RFC Acknowledgement
Hi folks, I am wondering how author/ietf-editor fill in the acknowledgement section in the RFCs or I-Ds. Does it make sense in IETF, or left for author opinion? I am getting requests from IETF WGs, IESG, and IAB for comments. My question is do you *make acknowledgements* in I-Ds or just *take comments* for I-Ds? IMO we get last call request for comments because RFC production is all about getting volunteering comments from Internet community to make I-Ds better, so does all I-Ds acknowledge (ACK) to any input comment before the last call and after or it is only before last call?, and if it gets submitted to IESG/IAB, and we comment does that have no ACK in I-D? I sometimes feel discouraged to participate in any world work if the process does not involve my existance, just used with ignoring ACK of the reviewers. IMO any comment has value to the authors (e.g. some think only experts' comments are important to ACK) and to IETF, otherwise, we may delete valuable ACKs in IETF, which is not right. Best Regards AB A participant that still did not complete a year working for IETF, but trying to continue :)
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
I try to include in the Acknowledgements section of any Internet Drafts I edit the names of anyone who comments on the draft if (1) the comment results in a change in the draft and (2) the commenter does not request that they be left out. If you comment on some draft and the draft is changed as a result and you want to be acknowledged and you are not added to the acknowledgements list, you should complain to the editor / author. Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: Hi folks, I am wondering how author/ietf-editor fill in the acknowledgement section in the RFCs or I-Ds. Does it make sense in IETF, or left for author opinion? I am getting requests from IETF WGs, IESG, and IAB for comments. My question is do you *make acknowledgements* in I-Ds or just *take comments* for I-Ds? IMO we get last call request for comments because RFC production is all about getting volunteering comments from Internet community to make I-Ds better, so does all I-Ds acknowledge (ACK) to any input comment before the last call and after or it is only before last call?, and if it gets submitted to IESG/IAB, and we comment does that have no ACK in I-D? I sometimes feel discouraged to participate in any world work if the process does not involve my existance, just used with ignoring ACK of the reviewers. IMO any comment has value to the authors (e.g. some think only experts' comments are important to ACK) and to IETF, otherwise, we may delete valuable ACKs in IETF, which is not right. Best Regards AB A participant that still did not complete a year working for IETF, but trying to continue :)
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
On 2/8/13 6:36 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: I try to include in the Acknowledgements section of any Internet Drafts I edit the names of anyone who comments on the draft if (1) the comment results in a change in the draft and (2) the commenter does not request that they be left out. If you comment on some draft and the draft is changed as a result and you want to be acknowledged and you are not added to the acknowledgements list, you should complain to the editor / author. Really? I only expect to be acknowledged when I've got text included or have made some other significant contribution. Melinda
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
--On Friday, February 08, 2013 18:42 -0900 Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/8/13 6:36 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: I try to include in the Acknowledgements section of any Internet Drafts I edit the names of anyone who comments on the draft if (1) the comment results in a change in the draft and (2) the commenter does not request that they be left out. If you comment on some draft and the draft is changed as a result and you want to be acknowledged and you are not added to the acknowledgements list, you should complain to the editor / author. Really? I only expect to be acknowledged when I've got text included or have made some other significant contribution. Remembering that we've managed to get ourselves into a situation in which there is a IPR policy-based requirement for some acknowledgements, do we really need to debate this topic rather than saying author/editor discretion as long as the author or editor is sensitive to requests for inclusion or exclusion and to the IPR policy requirements about substantive Contributions. My personal instincts as an author run somewhat closer to Melinda's criterion than to Don's but my bigger concern is that trying to make specific rules about this will result in an extended rat hole tour that ends up with rules that don't work well for edge cases we don't anticipate. john
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
Hi Donald, The problem is that most people don't complain or don't like to complain, that is reality, they will leave such society easily. So does the IETF have some kind of self check without the commentor complaining. I suggest the WG chair to maintain the WG I-Ds, and if individual I-D then the AD responsible to maintain that, AB On 2/9/13, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote: I try to include in the Acknowledgements section of any Internet Drafts I edit the names of anyone who comments on the draft if (1) the comment results in a change in the draft and (2) the commenter does not request that they be left out. If you comment on some draft and the draft is changed as a result and you want to be acknowledged and you are not added to the acknowledgements list, you should complain to the editor / author. Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: Hi folks, I am wondering how author/ietf-editor fill in the acknowledgement section in the RFCs or I-Ds. Does it make sense in IETF, or left for author opinion? I am getting requests from IETF WGs, IESG, and IAB for comments. My question is do you *make acknowledgements* in I-Ds or just *take comments* for I-Ds? IMO we get last call request for comments because RFC production is all about getting volunteering comments from Internet community to make I-Ds better, so does all I-Ds acknowledge (ACK) to any input comment before the last call and after or it is only before last call?, and if it gets submitted to IESG/IAB, and we comment does that have no ACK in I-D? I sometimes feel discouraged to participate in any world work if the process does not involve my existance, just used with ignoring ACK of the reviewers. IMO any comment has value to the authors (e.g. some think only experts' comments are important to ACK) and to IETF, otherwise, we may delete valuable ACKs in IETF, which is not right. Best Regards AB A participant that still did not complete a year working for IETF, but trying to continue :)
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
I try to include in the Acknowledgements section of any Internet Drafts I edit the names of anyone who comments on the draft if (1) the comment results in a change in the draft and (2) the commenter does not request that they be left out. If you comment on some draft and the draft is changed as a result and you want to be acknowledged and you are not added to the acknowledgements list, you should complain to the editor / author. That's exactly the policy Nathaniel Borenstein and I agreed to use for MIME. I've used it ever since for all the documents I have edited, and it seems to have worked well. (And apologies to anyone whose name I have omitted under that policy - if I did that it was entirely inadvertent.) The only time I've ever had an acknowledgments section has been when an author or contributor is deceased. This very unfortunate situation is quite delicate and merits handling on a case-by-case basis; IMO no specific policy could possibly be written to accomodate it. Ned
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
On 2/8/13 6:55 PM, John C Klensin wrote: Remembering that we've managed to get ourselves into a situation in which there is a IPR policy-based requirement for some acknowledgements, do we really need to debate this topic rather than saying author/editor discretion as long as the author or editor is sensitive to requests for inclusion or exclusion and to the IPR policy requirements about substantive Contributions. That's my sense as well, and I think it makes a lot of sense in terms of process/overhead to just leave it up to the discretion of chairs and editors. The notion of acknowledging every single person who stepped up to the mic and made any comment, or who posted to a mailing list, seems a bit over-the-top to me. Melinda
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:55 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: My personal instincts as an author run somewhat closer to Melinda's criterion than to Don's but my bigger concern is that trying to make specific rules about this will result in an extended rat hole tour that ends up with rules that don't work well for edge cases we don't anticipate. Yes. I tend to acknowledge comments on a draft, and to separately acknowledge comments that included text or which resulted in large changes - I do both Don and Melinda's algorithms. The important thing is, though, to be liberal in what one includes, and to be conservative in the application of legalistic rules.
Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
On 09/02/2013 03:55, John C Klensin wrote: ... My personal instincts as an author run somewhat closer to Melinda's criterion than to Don's but my bigger concern is that trying to make specific rules about this will result in an extended rat hole tour that ends up with rules that don't work well for edge cases we don't anticipate. In complete violation of the spirit of draft-resnick-on-consensus, I will limit my comment to +1. Can we discuss something technical, please? Brian
