On 03/25/2013 02:05 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
My experience over lo, these many years is that the best way to ensure
that you're recognized is to produce text/suggestions/ideas that other
people find valuable.
+1
Hi Melinda
I like what we have so far, but are those connected
processes/information reflected into the produced document? Why
ignoring names of volunteers? I suggest to fix this,
AB
+
We have the mailing list archives, we've got the document shepherd
writeups, we've got the IESG
On 3/24/13 10:02 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I like what we have so far, but are those connected
processes/information reflected into the produced document? Why
ignoring names of volunteers? I suggest to fix this,
My experience over lo, these many years is that the best way to ensure
that
On 3/25/13, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com 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.
Do you have a reference that
/
_
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam
Baryun [abdussalambar...@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 March 2013 06:02
To: melinda.shore
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: On the tradition of I-D Acknowledgements sections
Hi Melinda
I like what we have so far
Some people never recognise new comers ideas until backed up with old
comer idea. Do you think that is right? I agree with your suggestion
only if the IETF editor team agree to include you in the possibility
of produce team ideas. I don't think all working groups in the IETF
are giving chance to
...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam
Baryun [abdussalambar...@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 March 2013 06:02
To: melinda.shore
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: On the tradition of I-D Acknowledgements sections
Hi Melinda
I like what we have so far, but are those connected
processes/information reflected
On 3/24/13 10:28 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Some people never recognise new comers ideas until backed up with old
comer idea. Do you think that is right?
No, I think that is not right.
I brought middlebox work to the IETF as my initial
involvement. It did not go smoothly, but it went,
and
...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam
Baryun [abdussalambar...@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 March 2013 06:02
To: melinda.shore
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: On the tradition of I-D Acknowledgements sections
Hi Melinda
I like what we have so far, but are those connected
processes/information
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 the
Personally, as a fairly active WG participant and reviewer, I would
not expect an acknowledgement unless I contribute a significant new
idea or a reasonable sized chunk of text.
As an author or editor, my intention is to acknowledge people whose
input led to new ideas or new text. Possibly, I'd
Hi Abdussalam,
At 23:10 24-03-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Do you have a reference that shows that IETF follows your opinion,
please point to a best practice of informational RFC that mentions
that, we should not assume.
I agree with the comments in the message from Joel Halpern at
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
I have gave some feedback to some I+D authors, I have commented I+Ds
on emailing lists, etc. but never with any expectation of being thanked
by and ack in the I+D or even to include my comments if those are not
supported by the authors or the WG. My only expectation to participate
in the
On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:14 AM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org 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
On 3/25/13 1:11 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
AB,
I've been following this first with increasing amusement, ... not!
A search on Baryun for IDs on the RFC Editors web page gives the
following result:
o Based on your search of [Baryun] in the All Fields field zero matches
were made.
Time
--On Monday, March 25, 2013 09:05 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 3/25/13 1:11 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
AB,
I've been following this first with increasing amusement,
... not!
A search on Baryun for IDs on the RFC Editors web page gives
the following result:
o
Folks,
There have been more than 25 postings on this sub-thread, and I don't
see any indication that it covers a 'problem' in the IETF, or at least
not one that has any constituency behind it.
If this thread is supposed to accomplish more than assuage one person's
concern, what is it and
--On Monday, March 25, 2013 08:38 -0700 Dave Crocker
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Folks,
There have been more than 25 postings on this sub-thread, and
I don't see any indication that it covers a 'problem' in the
IETF, or at least not one that has any constituency behind it.
Dave,
I mostly
On Monday, March 25, 2013 11:54:10 AM John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, March 25, 2013 08:38 -0700 Dave Crocker
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Folks,
There have been more than 25 postings on this sub-thread, and
I don't see any indication that it covers a 'problem' in the
IETF, or at
On 3/25/2013 8:54 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
At the same time, a fairly
wide range of beliefs and opinions about what and who should
appear in acknowledgments has emerged, including the idea that
acknowledgments can be used to buy participation or reviews.
I personally find the latter idea
I will/may continue my draft work so you will expect -01 in future, the
reason of let expire is just I got a little bussy with other private work,
and sometimes with IETF requests.
AB
And, actually, this is more interesting. I don't follow MANET
or ROLL, but the 2119 update got some
On 03/25/13 11:54, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com allegedly wrote:
So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about
acknowledgments would be in order.
or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not
subject to IETF guidance.
On 3/25/13 8:17 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not
subject to IETF guidance.
Excellent.
Melinda
On 2013-03-25, at 12:17, Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu wrote:
On 03/25/13 11:54, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com allegedly wrote:
So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about
acknowledgments would be in order.
or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and
+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
On Mar 25, 2013, at 15:38, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org 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
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 Monday, March 25, 2013 11:59 -0400 Scott Kitterman
sc...@kitterman.com wrote:
So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about
acknowledgments would be in order. If so, Abdussalam has done
us something of a favor by raising the issue explicitly (no
matter what various of us
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
Scott == Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu writes:
Scott On 03/25/13 11:54, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com allegedly
wrote:
So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about
acknowledgments would be in order.
Scott or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required
Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net 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
On 3/25/2013 12:17 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On 03/25/13 11:54, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com allegedly wrote:
So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about
acknowledgments would be in order.
or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not
subject to IETF
On Sun, 2013-03-24 at 22:23 -0400, 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
On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
My habit is to have the document source (and rendered copy) open on my screen
as I read and digest comments. If I make a change to the document following
someone's comment, I add them to the Acknowledgements section (and
- Original Message -
From: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 1:11 AM
We have the mailing list archives, we've got the document shepherd
writeups, we've got the IESG evaluation record, we've got the IESG
writeups, we've got meeting
RFCs say how, but rarely why.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
Elwyn said
As regards 'history': RFCs record 'state' and not history. That isn't
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com 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
Shore
[melinda.sh...@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 March 2013 16:20
To: Scott Brim
Cc: John C Klensin; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf
Subject: Re: On the tradition of I-D Acknowledgements sections
On 3/25/13 8:17 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not
subject
On 3/25/13 1:57 PM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 1:11 AM
We have the mailing list archives, we've got the document shepherd
writeups, we've got the IESG evaluation record, we've got the IESG
of I-D Acknowledgements sections
On 3/25/13 8:17 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not
subject to IETF guidance.
Excellent.
Melinda
] 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 setting up by assertion a standard
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
On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie 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!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/25/13 9:35 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, March 25, 2013 09:05 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 3/25/13 1:11 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
AB,
I've been following this first with increasing amusement, ...
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
56 matches
Mail list logo
