Hi Donald, The problem is that most people don't complain or don't like to complain, that is reality, they will leave such society easily. So does the IETF have some kind of self check without the commentor complaining. I suggest the WG chair to maintain the WG I-Ds, and if individual I-D then the AD responsible to maintain that, AB On 2/9/13, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I try to include in the Acknowledgements section of any Internet > Drafts I edit the names of anyone who comments on the draft if (1) the > comment results in a change in the draft and (2) the commenter does > not request that they be left out. If you comment on some draft and > the draft is changed as a result and you want to be acknowledged and > you are not added to the acknowledgements list, you should complain to > the editor / author. > > Thanks, > Donald > ============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Abdussalam Baryun > <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I am wondering how author/ietf-editor fill in the acknowledgement >> section in the RFCs or I-Ds. Does it make sense in IETF, or left for >> author opinion? I am getting requests from IETF WGs, IESG, and IAB for >> comments. My question is do you *make acknowledgements* in I-Ds or >> just *take comments* for I-Ds? >> >> IMO we get last call request for comments because RFC production is >> all about getting volunteering comments from Internet community to >> make I-Ds better, so does all I-Ds acknowledge (ACK) to any input >> comment before the last call and after or it is only before last >> call?, and if it gets submitted to IESG/IAB, and we comment does that >> have no ACK in I-D? >> >> I sometimes feel discouraged to participate in any world work if the >> process does not involve my existance, just used with ignoring ACK of >> the reviewers. IMO any comment has value to the authors (e.g. some >> think only experts' comments are important to ACK) and to IETF, >> otherwise, we may delete valuable ACKs in IETF, which is not right. >> >> Best Regards >> >> AB >> A participant that still did not complete a year working for IETF, but >> trying to continue :) >