On 3/25/13, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think I at least partly disagree. The acknowledgements section of > RFCs was not, and to the best of my knowledge is not, concerned with > capturing the history of where specific changes or ideas came from. Do you have a reference that shows that IETF follows your opinion, please point to a best practice of informational RFC that mentions that, we should not assume. > It > ought to be concerned with giving credit to folks who made particularly > large, but not authorship level, contributions to the document. Maybe that is majority of editors but should not be true. The contributors are mentioned in RFC as contributors (i.e. that added large technical contributing), and acknowledgements are thanking folks that participated > > I have seen I-Ds which included change logs which made an effort to > capture the major changes to a document and their cause. these were, at > best, ungainly. And are, as far as I know, always removed before > publicaiton as an RFC. If participants agreed to do that then it is ok, as long as all are happy. Please note that some participants have right to ask to remove their name, but also IMO we need not as editors to remove or ignore without permission. Thanks AB > > Yours, > Joel > > On 3/24/2013 8:55 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> Just to make things clear that the intention of documents >> acknowledging is to reflect the truth of any document process and >> connect information or resources. IMHO, it is not the purpose to show >> credit to any person including authors, it is to show how changes were >> developed and show true document-history. >> >> So when I read a RFC I may go through the document process and its >> draft versions, while going through the drafts related I see >> acknowledged names so I may find the input on the list for such name. >> In this way we have connections between inputs otherwise the IETF >> system has no connection between its important information. >> >> AB >> >