On 2/11/13 2:34 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi SM,
thanks for your email, my reply inline;
On 2/11/13, 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
I agree with them and never disagreed, I just gave a point of view,
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.
Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has
no right to edit/amend a document that it is publishing? I
misunderstand your point,
Once an RFC number is issued and the document published, the content of
that RFC never changes.
See RFC 2200 section 2