Subject: The RFC Acknowledgement

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 04:11:51 +0100

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 :)

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:36:24 -0500

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
 [email-masked]

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 18:42:02 -0900

> you are not added to the acknowledgements list, you should complain to

Really?  I only expect to be acknowledged when I've got text
included or have made some other significant contribution.

Melinda

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 22:55:07 -0500

--On Friday, February 08, 2013 18:42 -0900 Melinda Shore
<[email-masked]> 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.
> 

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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 05:04:09 +0100

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:55:54 -0800 (PST)

> you are not added to the acknowledgements list, you should complain to

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

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:12:34 -0900

> 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

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 04:31:14 +0000

> 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.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:49:25 +0000

On 09/02/2013 03:55, John C Klensin wrote:
...
> 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

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 07:13:05 -0500

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 22:46:57 -0500 (EST)

> From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
> 

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

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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:28:52 +0100

Hi Dale,

thanks for your feedback. some comment below,

> "When can I expect a document author to include an Acknowledgment of

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,
> 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,

> 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,

> 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.

> Gain Prominence and Influence in Standards Organizations".

Thanks for that advice,

> reputation as a person who does these tasks, it will increase the

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

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:54:40 -0500

> 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.").

> because of significant contributions
...
> In IETF it is all about discussions and comments

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.

> 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.

> 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

---

From: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:26:25 -0500

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.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:02:12 -0500

At 11:04 PM 2/8/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:47:38 +0100

> 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

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:40:54 -0600

> 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-au…

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

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:28:04 -0800

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

>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.

>best ideas come from discussions of different level of experiences

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".

---

From: "Bradner, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:43:10 +0000

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 <[email-masked]> 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 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> 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".

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:25:09 -0800

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 <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [...]
> [...]

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

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 05:49:02 +0800

> (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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:34:30 +0100

Hi SM,

thanks for your email, my reply inline;

> 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,

> 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,

> "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.

> 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.

> 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

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:48:37 -0800

Alright,

it's not important for this discussion anyway; just ignore my comment.

Ulrich

Sent from my iPhone

Hi, Ulrich.

Does that help?

Barry

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:03:57 -0800

> 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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:32:17 +0100

> Once an RFC number is issued  and the document published, the content of
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

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:00:41 -0800

> 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.
> 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.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:36:12 -0800

Hi Ulrich,
>(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

>others, and I don't see how continuing it would generate new value.

Agreed.

>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.

>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

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:08:31 -0800

Alright, thanks

Ulrich

On Feb 11, 2013, at 15:36, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Your comment reminded me of the message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep/current/msg00085.html
> 
> I pointed to two reviews about a draft and mentioned that the first one was clearer to me.
> 
> 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
>

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:51:07 -0800

AB,

> 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