On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi Lloyd,
>
> On 03/25/2013 10:03 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>> (i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D
>> recommending how to write acks, I get acked…)
+1
W
P.S: :-P
>
> Thanks! Yours is the first
Hi Lloyd,
On 03/25/2013 10:03 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> (i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D
> recommending how to write acks, I get acked...)
Thanks! Yours is the first useful thing anyone's said in this
thread that I recall. (Most previous mails made me
..@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M.
Halpern [j...@joelhalpern.com]
Sent: 25 March 2013 16:35
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: Carsten Bormann; Paul Hoffman; ietf
Subject: Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D
"Acknowledgements" sections)
It seems to me that you are sett
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> It seems to me that you are setting up by assertion a standard that has
> never applied to this community.
>
> Having said that, if we want to go down this path, then we could do what
> groups like IEEE do. Remove all authors names, all p
> "Dave" == Dave Crocker writes:
Dave> Citing a 'contributors' section is invention on-the-fly. It's
Dave> not irrational, but it is not established IETF practice.
I believe contributors sections to be IETF practice.
As an example take a look at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.h
On 3/25/2013 9:35 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
The WG can decide to have a "contributors" section or whatever it
wants.
The acknowledgements section, however, is, very much like the street
address, the authors' thing, and entirely up to their conscience.
Sorry, no.
It is not a collection of
It seems to me that you are setting up by assertion a standard that has
never applied to this community.
Having said that, if we want to go down this path, then we could do what
groups like IEEE do. Remove all authors names, all personal
acknowledgements, etc. The work is simply the product
On Mar 25, 2013, at 15:38, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG
>> consensus as the authors' street addresses.
>
> Disagree. WG documents are WG documents. If the author/editor doesn't want to
> do what the WG consensus is about the d
+1. My view as well. I will add I think it generally means there will a
problem in a WG if an AUTHOR has issues with its WG participants, enough
to a point he/she begins to ignore them - despite all the input they
provided, included the indirect ones that help mold others to think and
chime in
On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:14 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments
>> sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are
>> fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between.
>
> Bingo. It is up to the sole d
Hi Carsten,
In general, I agree we don't force authors/owners of documents, as
tradition in the world and in all reasonable organisation, we never
force any author to be thankful. But don't forget the situation in
IETF is different and the documents are different as well.
The document is a IETF
> Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments
> sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are
> fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between.
Bingo. It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they want
to list in th
12 matches
Mail list logo
