RE: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Abusallam,

if you want namecheck credit on an internet draft, may I suggest simply writing an internet draft yourself?

(I would also recommend leaving writing drafts until after a PhD is complete; for the PhD, it's academic papers that matter.)

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/


_____________________________________
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 25 March 2013 06:02
To: melinda.shore
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

Hi Melinda

I like what we have so far, but are those connected
processes/information reflected into the produced document? Why
ignoring names of volunteers? I suggest to fix this,

AB
+++++++++++++
We have the mailing list archives, we've got the document shepherd
writeups, we've got the IESG evaluation record, we've got the IESG
writeups, we've got meeting minutes, we've got jabber session
archives, we've got audio recordings of meetings, and we've got the
document history.

Melinda
>>   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
>>
>





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]