Thomas, I philosophically agree with you. Then lets be consistent and document this possibly with rfc-editor document.
/jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 9:05 PM > To: Bound, Jim > Cc: James Kempf; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Authors Section on recyle clarifications to 2461and 2462 > > > Jim, > > > If we had to recycle 2460 and Steve is still gone and Bob > Hinden don't > > have time (which I guess is the case with Erik and Thomas) would we > > add another name to the IPv6 specification? I don't > believe we would > > out of respect to Steve. > > And who on earth would be willing to author a document if > they couldn't even get credit for the work that they put into > the revision? > > While I don't see a need make significant revisions to 2460, > I don't think it's healthy to associate individuals with > documents to the point where it becomes impossible to > conceive of any change in the authorship of a document > because of history. Each new version of a document should > stand on its own merits, and if a new editor/author has done > significant work, they should be acknowledged for it, quite > possibly by being listed as a new or additional author. But > again, talking hypotheticals is not so productive here. This > sort of conversation is best held when it has become clear > how much work was put into a document and by who. > > Thomas > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
