With respect to the specific document that led to this discussion,
draft-ietf-ltru-matching, I have asked the WG members at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04975.html
as follws:
If anybody who has contributed would like their name to be mentioned,
or thinks that
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
Disclaimer: IANAL, and this message is not intended as legal advice.
Please, read RFC3979 for yourself, and if you have concerns as to what
your obligations are or what you can get away with, consult a lawyer.
On Wednesday, June 07, 2006 02:22:06 PM -0400 Gray, Eric
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 03:58:15AM +0200,
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 13 lines which said:
- Appendix A - some names seem to be missing. I could quote a small
score of them?
I do not know if there are written rules about the Acknowledgements
or Credits section
At 10:02 07/06/2006, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 03:58:15AM +0200,
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 13 lines which said:
- Appendix A - some names seem to be missing. I could quote a small
score of them?
I do not know if there are written
Perhaps I lead a sheltered life, but on two of these points...
- Appendix A - some names seem to be missing. I could quote a small
score of them?
I do not know if there are written rules about the Acknowledgements
or Credits section in a RFC. It seems quite variable between the
RFCs. I am
The basic problem is that there is no way to acknowledge all the
folks who helped, for the most general definition of
contributor. One would have to keep track of every person who made
a comment on the mailing list (whether the particular change ended up
used or not) and everyone who spoke at
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:10:25AM -0400,
Joel M. Halpern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 86 lines which said:
the acknowledgements section was intended for folks who wrote
pieces, or folks who suggested useful ideas, or provided significant
useful corrections, etc. The contributors
Asunto: Re: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last Call: 'Matching of
Language Tags' to BCP (draft-ietf-ltru-matching)
The basic problem is that there is no way to acknowledge all the
folks who helped, for the most general definition of
contributor. One would have to keep track of every
On 06/07/2006 09:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer allegedly wrote:
These rules are perfectly reasonable (even if they would cost me my
acknowledgment in draft-ietf-ltru-matching) but:
1) They do not seem to be written somewhere. I cannot find them in the
RFCs talking about RFCs (meta-RFCs?
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:36:53AM -0400,
Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 17 lines which said:
If you feel like you have been unjustly left out of an
acknowledgments section in a specific draft or RFC,
Not at all. (You can read the whole thread to get the details but, as
At 15:10 07/06/2006, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
The basic problem is that there is no way to acknowledge all the
folks who helped, for the most general definition of
contributor. One would have to keep track of every person who
made a comment on the mailing list (whether the particular change
JFC Morfin wrote:
--
In _this_ case we have an additional element which is that a single
RFC BCP becomes a two RFC BCP. The people who contributed to the
first RFC and the people who contributed to the former practice
should be acknowledged. Otherwise, there is no reason why we would have a
PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:48 AM
-- To: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last
-- Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to BCP (draft-ietf-ltru-matching)
--
-- Perhaps I lead a sheltered life, but on two of these points...
--
-- - Appendix A - some
*
* the acknowledgements section was intended for folks who wrote
* pieces, or folks who suggested useful ideas, or provided significant
* useful corrections, etc. The contributors section was introduced in
* conjunction with the effort to reduce the set of authors to those
*
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Perhaps I lead a sheltered life, but on two of these points...
snip
- the IETF is made of paid and free volunteers. The reward of the free
participants is their exposure. If we want top quality participants we must
acknowledge their contributions.
--On Wednesday, 07 June, 2006 12:33 -0400 Gray, Eric
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spencer,
This opens up yet another can of worms. Suppose that
everybody who makes a comment on a draft (substantive, or
otherwise) has to be listed and every one listed is bound by
BCPs relating to IPR,
-- Subject: RE: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last
-- Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to BCP (draft-ietf-ltru-matching)
--
--
--
-- --On Wednesday, 07 June, 2006 12:33 -0400 Gray, Eric
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
-- Spencer,
--
--This opens up yet another can of worms. Suppose
Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 1:53 PM
To: Gray, Eric; Spencer Dawkins
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last
Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to BCP (draft-ietf-ltru-matching
--On Wednesday, 07 June, 2006 14:22 -0400 Gray, Eric
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I disagree both in the belief that the Note Well is
clear on this and the sense of your argument that anyone
participating in any part of a discussion can be made
retroactively responsible for the
John,
Agree.
-- -Original Message-
-- From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:04 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: RE: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last
-- Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to BCP (draft
On Jun 7, 2006, at 12:03 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This is the negative side of the discussion going on.
People are focusing on reasons why someone might want to be
included in acknowledgements. I am merely pointing out that
it is also possible that someone might not want this.
Disclaimer: IANAL, and this message is not intended as legal advice.
Please, read RFC3979 for yourself, and if you have concerns as to what
your obligations are or what you can get away with, consult a lawyer.
On Wednesday, June 07, 2006 02:22:06 PM -0400 Gray, Eric
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
22 matches
Mail list logo
