Hi SM, thanks for your email, my reply inline;
On 2/11/13, SM <s...@resistor.net> 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 agree with them and never disagreed, I just gave a point of view, > At 23:47 10-02-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >>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 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. 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, > >>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, :-) > > 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? 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. > > 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". 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. > > 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. 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 > > 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". > >
