Re: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to BCP (draft-ietf-ltru-matching)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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? IPODs?).
> 
> 2) They are not currently applied or enforced, as anyone can see when
> comparing a RFC with the work in the WG which created it. (Not a big
> deal but good to keep in mind when you read an Ack section.)

They should not be *rules*.  If you try to formalize the definition of
a "contribution", then we get into eternal niggling.  If you feel like
you have been unjustly left out of an acknowledgments section in a
specific draft or RFC, argue your case.  Let's not have yet more
process and procedure and administration for issues that don't affect
running code.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]