Hi Jazi,
I disagree with draft-editors decision, comments below,
On 3/23/13, Jiazi Yi i...@jiaziyi.com wrote:
Dear AB,
On this particular issue (threats of packet sequence number), as far as I
can remember, the change was not based on (or influenced by) your input. In
the meantime, the
On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:42 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
You mean the editors of this draft (I will note them as not
acknowledging participants, for my future review). I am a MANET WG
participants, but if you mention the names that made efforts it is
more true because
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013, John Curran wrote:
On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:42 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
You mean the editors of this draft (I will note them as not
acknowledging participants, for my future review). I am a MANET WG
participants, but if you mention the
At 08:46 24-03-2013, John Curran wrote:
It is non-sensical to expect document editors to track and list everybody
who had input on a given draft, particularly when one considers the volume
of comments received on many of the mailing lists and working groups.
I would expect a document editor to
I don't agree that editors should miss efforts and input owners for
their individual-draft or WG draft. I think it is a shame that editors
may ignore such efforts while they benefit from the input to change
their draft. Why editor name is mentioned as authors not contributors
while it may be the
Just to make things clear that the intention of documents
acknowledging is to reflect the truth of any document process and
connect information or resources. IMHO, it is not the purpose to show
credit to any person including authors, it is to show how changes were
developed and show true
On 3/24/13 4:55 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
In this way we have connections between inputs otherwise the IETF
system has no connection between its important information.
We have the mailing list archives, we've got the document shepherd
writeups, we've got the IESG evaluation record, we've got
On 3/24/13 4:55 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
In this way we have connections between inputs otherwise the IETF
system has no connection between its important information.
We have the mailing list archives, we've got the document shepherd
writeups, we've got the IESG evaluation record, we've got
I think I at least partly disagree. The acknowledgements section of
RFCs was not, and to the best of my knowledge is not, concerned with
capturing the history of where specific changes or ideas came from. It
ought to be concerned with giving credit to folks who made particularly
large, but
On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
It ought to be concerned with giving credit to folks who made particularly
large, but not authorship level, contributions to the document.
+1
Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments
On 03/25/2013 09:23 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I think I at least partly disagree. The acknowledgements section of
RFCs was not, and to the best of my knowledge is not, concerned with
capturing the history of where specific changes or ideas came from.
It ought to be concerned with giving
On 03/24/2013 11:23 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have seen I-Ds which included change logs which made an effort to
capture the major changes to a document and their cause. these were, at
best, ungainly. And are, as far as I know, always removed before
publicaiton as an RFC.
I used to
12 matches
Mail list logo
