On Sat, 7-Mar-09, at 20:58 , Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
PS - Thank you for your TURN implementations - as you know, they have
helped find many problems with that spec. I'm off to read the TURN
Acknowledgements :-)
My contributions were acknowledged, it's not the issue. The issue,
IMO, is that there is not enough early implementations and I was
just trying to find a way to improve this. The solution proposed
was universally rejected, so the problem is still here.
In my opinion, what would be helpful is a gentle reminder to authors
to review the acknowledgement section of their drafts regularly to
ensure that it is up-to-date, perhaps with the suggestion that they
make special mention of early implementors. If you are editing a
specification that goes on for some time, at times you forget things
like this. I am the editor of the above-mentioned TURN specification,
and I found that I "forgot" about certain sections at times. Once, I
even published a version with TWO open issues sections (thanks for
catching that, Cullen!).
Perhaps idnits could be enhanced to suggest things like this? For
example, perhaps idnits could be enhanced with the following warning:
"You have not changed your acknowledgement section in the last
three revisions. Should other people be acknowledged? For example, are
there people who have done a preliminary implementation and provided
useful feedback?"
Marc: Perhaps your draft should be rewritten to suggest this idnits
change?
- Philip
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf