I have not followed all of this thread but, in case someone had not already mentioned it, acknowledging major contributors is required, but not lessor contributors (that is left up to the authors) see RFC 3978 section 3.4. a Scott On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:28 PM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Abdussalam, > > Eric Burger provided some information about acknowledgements in a message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77076.html Fred Baker shared his perspective in a message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71104.html > > At 23:47 10-02-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> Then from your opinion to be fare, I RECOMMEND that the RFC-section >> SHOULD be changed to *Authors' Acknowledgements*. Please note that the >> RFC is owned by the IETF so the section of ACK should not be only >> thanks of the authors or editors or Chairs, otherwise SHOULD be >> mentioned in title. IETF considers all inputs related to I-D as a >> contribution, please read the NOTE WELL. So do we understand that IETF >> is impolite with some of its contributors/workers? > > I don't see anything in RFCs to point to the fact that "the RFC is owned by the IETF". The Note Well is about keeping the lawyers happy. I don't see what it has to do with impolite. If your name has been missed in the Acknowledgements Section you could send a message to the author, with a copy to the document shepherd, about that. > >> It is not about bonuses, it is about truth I-D's influences and the >> way the IETF process and work progresses. Do you think an I-D >> progresses only if experts comment and contribute? don't think so, >> best ideas come from discussions of different level of experiences >> including zero, :-) > > This is what I saw in a draft: "The authors would like to thank Christian Jacquenet, Tim Winter, Pieter De Mil, David Meyer and Abdussalam Baryun for their valuable feed-back". I note that there is only one person listed as an author. If I suggest removing the "s" from author, should I be mentioned in the Acknowledgements Section? > > There was a Last Call for draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-10. There can be a DISCUSS on that draft because of an insignificant detail [1]. I don't really know whether it's worth an "acknowledgement". > > Thomas Heide Clausen commented [2] about draft-cardenas-dff-09 [4]. I don't know the person (zero reputation). You also posted a review [3]. The first review is clearer. > > Regards, > -sm > > 1. My guess is that the reviewer will catch it. > 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77078.html > 3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77089.html > 4. I glanced at the draft. Section 2.2 is about terminology. Section 14.1.1 also mentions terminology. There are different definitions for "Address".