> On 3/4/09 12:17 PM, "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <petithug@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Now, I know by experience that even significant contributions to an > > I-D does not guarantee you a place in the acknowledgement section. If that's indeed the case then that's a problem independent of this proposal. Failure to properly acknowledge significant contributions is wrong no matter how you slice it. That said, I have on more than one occasion gotten requests from someone that their name be removed from an acknowledgements section. In fact in one case I was tempted in one case to replace the name with Alan Smithee, but on further consideration I decided that was a bad idea... > > So what is the incentive into developing code that 1) will probably > > be obsoleted by the next version of the I-D and 2) will not be > > acknowledged at all in contributing to the improvement of the protocol? > I tend to assume people will be interested in a protocol > for some other reasons than garnering acknowledgements > and fluffing their resumes, and those other reasons will > presumably be sufficient motivation. And if you do an implementation of a protocol nothing prevents you from listing that fact on a resume. I don't see why mention in an RFC would be a prequiisite for this. And if authors are required to list all implementations per this proposal independent of whether or not that work actually contributes to the specification, the value of such citations drops to almost nothing anyway. > Implementing something > will tend to be a pretty good way to find bugs, inefficiencies, > or other problems with a protocol specification. If you're > interested in kudos, take the issues you find to the mailing > list rather than directly to the author. +1 > I'm pretty surprised by this argument. +1 Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf