Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt> (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC

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

 



On 6/6/13, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It falls to me to make a call on this issue before the document moves on.
>
> Abdussalam has complained that he has not been acknowledged and has objected
> to
> the current text in section 8.
> The authors have responded on the MANET list
>
>> We believe that only comments that lead to significant improvements of
>> the draft deserve a listing in the acknowledgment section, and we have
>> therefore not modified the section.

What was the WG decision? Why any contribution that influnces the I-D
ideas is not acknowledged? IMO, if a technical-idea within the I-D was
discovered wrong by a participant, or a new technical-idea added to
I-D from an input, then the I-D should be acknowledged.

>
> I have reviewed the email threads on the MANET mailing list and do not
> consider
> that Abdussalam made contributions to the text of the document.

Didn't that person make review and discovered errors? Why don't you
consider discovering an error as a contribution? Why don't you
consider providing new ideas a contribution? What is your definition
to contribution?

> I also
> believe
> that the comments he made did not advance the content of the document.

So I understand that you need to have advance the content then you acknowledge.

> Furthermore, per multiple references (such as RFC 2026) the
> Acknowledgements
> section is used to "properly acknowledge major contributors.

I am trying to find that condition of *major contribution*,

>" Normal IETF
> business is to discuss not seek acknowledgement.

Ideas, Comments and reviews are included in the discuss for drafts
progress. Seeking acknowledgement is not wrong within IETF, but please
consider *not acknowledging reviews* within IETF documents is not IETF
culture (we are not paid so why you thinking much of the business, the
IETF business will only progress with acknowledging the volunteers).

>
> I do not propose to do an explicit consensus call on whether Abdussalam
> should
> be named in this draft.

IMO, it should have been done in the WG.


AB


> From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 03 June 2013 17:10
> To: ietf
> Cc: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [manet] Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt>
> (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
>
> I would hope that IETF add my name in the acknowledgement section of the
> I-D. I
> complained to AD about that my efforts in WGLC was not acknowledged by
> editors
> even after my request, however, I did not stop reviewing (trying not be
> discouraged) which I will complete on 6 June with the final comments.
> Therefore,
> this message (can be added as a comment on the I-D) is an objection to
> section 8
> that ignores acknowledge input/review effort related to the I-D.
>
> AB
>




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