From: Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net
I would even suggest that all I-D authors, at the very least, should
need to register with the IETF to submit documents.
Oddly enough, back in the Dark Ages (i.e. the ARPANET), the DDN maintained
such a registry, and so if you Google 'NC3
I would even suggest that all I-D authors, at the very least, should
need to register with the IETF to submit documents.
Oddly enough, back in the Dark Ages (i.e. the ARPANET), the DDN maintained
such a registry, and so if you Google 'NC3 ARPANET' you will see that that
was the ID
I agree with both, but maybe the problem is that people from academia are
not participating enough to report to ADs their concerns (e.g. what is bad
in ietf, or lack of diversity), on the other hand, people from industry are
more organised and don't need/want the academians ideas/participations
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with both, but maybe the problem is that people from academia are
not participating enough to report to ADs their concerns (e.g. what is bad
in ietf, or lack of diversity), on the other hand, people
On Sep 18, 2013, at 5:09 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
on the other hand, people from industry are more organised and don't
need/want the academians ideas/participations :-)
The IETF is not an industry organization. We want (and get!) participation
from a wide
Hiya,
On 09/18/2013 10:22 AM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
With
limited resources (not only funds, also students are nowadays a scarce
resource) we must concentrate our efforts where the return for unit of
work is larger.
While I sympathise, that must above is a choice.
Since an academic
On 17 September 2013 20:14, Michael Tuexen
michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote:
I really think that you all are completely over-engineering
this.
+1
Really?
Each RFC lists the addresses of the authors.
There are, in the RfC I used as an example, far more acknowledged
contributors, than
On 17 September 2013 20:44, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
The idea is great. By why use ORCID? Why not Facebook? linked-in? etc. So
many issues when its 3rd party.
Facebook, LinkedIn (and other such services) are commercial, and
proprietary. Their data is not available under a CC0
On 17 September 2013 20:58, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
But all the newsletter spam potential and privacy issues
IETF has no legal hold or control of any kind, in case, well, of the many
things that can happen.
Please elaborate on these issues and things, in order that
specific
On 17 September 2013 21:10, Tony Hansen t...@att.com wrote:
What would the ORCID reference look like? My understanding is that it
would look like this: http://orcid.org/-0003-0437-
That is correct.
Very few people use the uri element in the author block. (I count zero
in the
On 17 September 2013 21:13, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
On 17 September 2013 14:37, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
Seems to me to be a conflict of interest issue.
Please explain where this conflict supposedly lies.
Too many to list.
Then please list a few.
Why not
On 18 September 2013 02:44, Andrew G. Malis agma...@gmail.com wrote:
Checking out the ORCID site, I noticed that when manually adding a
work, one of the possible external IDs is Request for Comments. So
they certainly seem to be aware of the RFC series. The site already
has the ability to
On 9/18/2013 8:45 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On 17 September 2013 21:10, Tony Hansen t...@att.com wrote:
Very few people use the uri element in the author block. (I count zero
in the currently extant internet-drafts XML files.) Its intended use
really is for the author to put in whatever URI
On 18 September 2013 14:04, Tony Hansen t...@att.com wrote:
I just re-read your original message to ietf@ietf.org. What I had
originally taken as a complaint about getting a way to have a unique id
(in this case, an ORCID) for the authors was instead a complaint about
getting a unique id for
--On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 14:30 +0100 Andy Mabbett
a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 18 September 2013 14:04, Tony Hansen t...@att.com wrote:
I just re-read your original message to ietf@ietf.org. What I
had originally taken as a complaint about getting a way to
have a unique id
There are, in the RfC I used as an example, far more acknowledged
contributors, than authors. No addresses for those contributors are
given.
As far as I can tell, nobody else considers that to be a problem.
I have written a bunch of books and looked at a lot of bibliographic
records, and I have
On 9/18/2013 8:59 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Andy, we just don't have a tradition of identifying people whose
contributed to RFCs with either contact or identification
information. It is explicitly possible when Contributors
sections are created and people are listed there, but contact or
On 9/18/13 8:59 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
There have been (counting me) four sitting ADs posting on this 90-email
thread, plus another six or so former ADs, including a former IETF
chair, plus at least six or so WG chairs, plus other participants of
good mind and good hearts. I'm thinking
On 17 September 2013 00:19, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any real downside to allowing
people who have ORCIDs to put them in IETF documents. I'm not
sure there's a lot of demand for them (this is the first time
it's come up, as far as I know) but I don't see a
On 9/17/13 3:56 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
Thank you. So how might we raise awareness of ORCID among RfC
contributors and and encourage its use by them?
I'm not sure much needs to be done other than talking with Heather
Flanagan (the RFC Editor), getting her sign-off, and then getting
it into the
On 17 September 2013 13:07, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure much needs to be done other than talking with Heather
Flanagan (the RFC Editor), getting her sign-off, and then getting
it into the xml2rfc schema and noting its existence.
Thank you. Is Heather on this list?
Heather Flanagan can be most easily reached at
rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org, the specified email address for reaching the
rfc-editor.
Note however that you need to be clear as to what you are asking her.
If you are asking that she arrange for the tools to include provision
for using ORCHIDs, that
+1 Thank you for your input. Seems to me to be a conflict of
interest issue. I support the basic concept but why not use a IETF
registry instead? Solves several of the conflict of interest
concerns, including about 3rd party entities disappearing, losing
support, etc.
--
HLS
On 9/17/2013
Hi. I agree completely with Joel, but let me add a bit more
detail and a possible alternative...
--On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 08:56 -0400 Joel M. Halpern
j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
If you are asking that she arrange for the tools
to include provision for using ORCHIDs, that is a
I did not know about ORCID before this thread.
I think it is brilliant, and what I've read about the mandate of
orcid.org, and how it is managed, I am enthusiastic.
I agree with what Joel wrote:
Asking for ORCID support in the tool set and asking for IETF endorsement
are two very different
--On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:20 -0400 Michael Richardson
m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
I did not know about ORCID before this thread.
I think it is brilliant, and what I've read about the mandate
of orcid.org, and how it is managed, I am enthusiastic.
I agree with what Joel wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Asking for ORCID support in the tool set and asking for IETF endorsement
are two very different things.
Having tool support for it is a necessary first step to permitting IETF
contributors to gain experience with it. We need that experience before
On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
I did not know about ORCID before this thread.
I think it is brilliant, and what I've read about the mandate of
orcid.org, and how it is managed, I am enthusiastic.
I agree with what Joel wrote:
Asking for ORCID
I'm in agreement.
We have not had any standards so far regarding maintenance of the validity of
contact information. For example, my contact information for the April 1, 1995
RFC 1776 is:
Steve Crocker
CyberCash, Inc.
2086 Hunters Crest Way
Vienna, VA 22181
Phone: +1 703
...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M.
Halpern
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:57 AM
To: Andy Mabbett
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors
Heather Flanagan can be most easily reached at
rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org, the specified email
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Pat Thaler ptha...@broadcom.com wrote:
Given this comment in John Levin's post: PS: Now that I think about it, you
can already put in a personal URL
in rfc2xml, so if someone wants to use an ORCID URL, they can do so
right now. it seems like there isn't any
On 9/17/13 9:55 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
... and that is my point. One level of indirection might be useful here.
I would prefer to update only one mapping and not go through a list
of RFCs and change the mapping for each document.
I really think that you all are completely over-engineering
On Sep 17, 2013, at 19:37, Michael Tuexen michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de
wrote:
I was always wondering the authors can't get an @ietf.org address, which is
listed
in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another account.
+1.
(Remarkably, all the RFCs I co-authored show the same email
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Michael Tuexen
michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote:
I was always wondering the authors can't get an @ietf.org address, which is
listed
in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another account.
The email address associated with the draft, for example
On Sep 17, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
I'm in agreement.
We have not had any standards so far regarding maintenance of the validity of
contact information. For example, my contact information for the April 1,
1995 RFC 1776 is:
Steve Crocker
CyberCash,
On Sep 17, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Michael Tuexen
michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote:
I was always wondering the authors can't get an @ietf.org address, which is
listed
in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another
On Sep 17, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/17/13 9:55 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
... and that is my point. One level of indirection might be useful here.
I would prefer to update only one mapping and not go through a list
of RFCs and change the mapping for
On 9/17/13 11:14 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
For example
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3237.txt
has 7 authors. I know that at least 4 affiliations have changed
and at least you can't reach me anymore via the given e-mail
address or telephone number.
This is not the problem ORCID addresses, except
On Sep 17, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/17/13 11:14 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
For example
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3237.txt
has 7 authors. I know that at least 4 affiliations have changed
and at least you can't reach me anymore via the given e-mail
On 9/17/2013 8:07 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
I'm not sure much needs to be done other than talking with Heather
Flanagan (the RFC Editor), getting her sign-off, and then getting
it into the xml2rfc schema and noting its existence.
What would the ORCID reference look like? My understanding is
On 9/17/13 1:08 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the
IETF. Some of our participants also publish at other SDOs such as
IEEE, W3C, ITU, and quite a few publish Academic papers.
On Sep 17, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net
wrote:
On 9/17/2013 1:55 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Michael
Yes, you can do this using RDFa [1] into HTML tags. If Dr. Krafft had
used RDFa so his page:
a. Will be a entry point and used as SPARQL[2] queries. This entry point
will be found in his contribuition to, or participation in the IETF
(e.g. in the Attendance List of the IETF meetings).
b. Could be
On 9/17/2013 1:55 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Michael Tuexen
michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote:
I was always wondering the authors can't get an @ietf.org address, which is
listed
in the
On 9/17/2013 3:24 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/17/13 11:14 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
For example
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3237.txt
has 7 authors. I know that at least 4 affiliations have changed
and at least you can't reach me anymore via the given e-mail
address or telephone number.
This
On 9/17/2013 4:52 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the IETF. Some of
our participants also publish at other SDOs such as IEEE, W3C, ITU, and quite a
few publish Academic papers. Using the same identifier for all these places
would be useful, and
On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net
wrote:
On 9/17/2013 1:55 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Michael Tuexen
michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote:
I was always
On 18/09/2013 09:11, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/17/13 1:08 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the
IETF. Some of our participants also publish at other SDOs such as
IEEE, W3C, ITU,
Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the IETF. Some of
our
participants also publish at other SDOs such as IEEE, W3C, ITU, and quite a
few publish
Academic papers. Using the same identifier for all these places would be
useful, and
that single identifier is not going to
It's practically essential for academics whose career depends on
attribution of publications and on citation counts (and for the
people who hire or promote them).
Gee, several of the other John Levines have published way more than I
have. If what we want is citation counts, confuse away.
R's,
Currently, IETF standards activity carries little or no weight for an
academic career profile. It doesn't appear to have a weighting compared to
peer review publication. I think this is a shame, because the contribution
is as substantive, if not more so. And, since time is limited and choices
have
Checking out the ORCID site, I noticed that when manually adding a
work, one of the possible external IDs is Request for Comments. So
they certainly seem to be aware of the RFC series. The site already
has the ability to search various external databases to automate the
process of adding works,
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:14 AM, George Michaelson g...@algebras.org wrote:
Currently, IETF standards activity carries little or no weight for an
academic career profile. It doesn't appear to have a weighting compared to
peer review publication. I think this is a shame, because the contribution
On 9/16/13 6:49 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
That's not to say you can't put any particular URI against your name in
an RFC, mind, but I'd be rather hesitant to leap at mandating a
registration procedure for authors.
I think it's an interesting idea. It might be worth talking
with Heather and
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote:
This problem is addressed by Open Research Contributor Identifiers
(ORCID; http://orcid.org), UIDs (and URIs) for scientific and other
academic authors. Mine is below.
There are actually IETF participants who
Or perhaps use the FOAF (Friends of A Friend), inaugurating Semantic Web
/ Linked Data in the IETF. Avoids centralization and imposes no limits
on the choice of the information by the interested.
Julião
Em 16/09/2013 11:52, Melinda Shore escreveu:
I think it's an interesting idea. It might be
--On Monday, September 16, 2013 18:34 +0100 Andy Mabbett
a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
If the goal is to include contact info for the authors in the
document and in fact you can't be contacted using the info is
it contact info?
While I didn't say that the goal was to provide contact
It's a good idea but I would generalize it. Why have a system just for I*?
I would allow people to provide a pointer to their public information in
one (or more?) of many places. For example,
http://vivo.cornell.edu/display/individual8772 and if necessary we can
explore federated identity.
On 16 September 2013 19:06, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
If the goal is to include contact info for the authors in the
document and in fact you can't be contacted using the info is
it contact info?
While I didn't say that the goal was to provide contact
info[*], an individual can
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/16/13 6:49 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
That's not to say you can't put any particular URI against your name in
an RFC, mind, but I'd be rather hesitant to leap at mandating a
registration procedure for authors.
I think it's an interesting
On 17/09/2013 02:39, Andy Mabbett wrote:
[First post here]
Hello,
I'm a contributor to RFC 6350 - but I'm listed there by name only, and
there is nothing to differentiate me from some other Andy Mabbett (the
problem is no doubt worse for people with less unusual family names).
Like many
On 9/16/13 7:39 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
[First post here]
Hello,
I'm a contributor to RFC 6350 - but I'm listed there by name only, and
there is nothing to differentiate me from some other Andy Mabbett (the
problem is no doubt worse for people with less unusual family names).
Like many
On 16 September 2013 17:59, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
I'm a contributor to RFC 6350 - but I'm listed there by name only, and
there is nothing to differentiate me from some other Andy Mabbett (the
problem is no doubt worse for people with less unusual family names).
Like many such
On Sep 16, 2013, at 11:31 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
How do I know that the sender of this message actually has the right
to claim the ORCID in question (-0001-5882-6823)? The web page
doesn't present anything (such as a public key) that could be used
for authentication.
I
On 16 September 2013 21:06, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
How do I know that the sender of this message actually has the right
to claim the ORCID in question (-0001-5882-6823)? The web page
doesn't present anything (such as a public key) that could be used
for
On 16 September 2013 21:37, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
It is not the purpose of ORCID to provide authentication.
I also note that:
ORCID uses OAuth to support authentication of the relationship
between an individual and an ORCID record. When an individual creates
a record,
On 16 September 2013 19:06, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Treating an ORCID (or equivalent) as supplemental would also
avoid requiring the RSE to inquire about guarantees about the
permanence and availability of the relevant database.
I've checked with ORCID and they say:
the ORCID
On 16 September 2013 22:02, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
If we use ORCID instead of email
No-one has proposed that.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
How do I know that the sender of this message actually has the right
to claim the ORCID in question (-0001-5882-6823)? The web page
doesn't present anything (such as a public key) that could be used
for authentication.
I dunno. How do we know who brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com is? I can
tell
On 9/16/13 1:02 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
If we use ORCID instead of email, we get less strong authentication.
That's not its job - it's there to distinguish between authors
with similar names. As I understand the proposal the intent is
to have it provide additional information, not supplant
On 17/09/2013 11:19, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/16/13 1:02 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
If we use ORCID instead of email, we get less strong authentication.
That's not its job - it's there to distinguish between authors
with similar names.
Fair enough, but adding a public key to the record would
On 9/16/13 3:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Fair enough, but adding a public key to the record would enable
authentication too.
I suppose it was inevitable that when it came into the IETF
it would balloon into an overcomplicated mess. Think of it
as one metadata element, not a big blob of
72 matches
Mail list logo
