Sorry to everyone for the noise this thread is creating. Multiple questions that I have to answer. > > 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? Are you asking whether there was an explicit consensus call within the working group on whether or not you should be acknowledged in this document? There was no such call in the working group or on the IETF list. > 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. This opinion does not apply to your comments on this document. You did not discover a wrong technical-idea. Your comments did not lead directly to the addition of any new technical-idea. > > 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? "That person" is you. Yes, you made a review. Reviewing a document is not something authors acknowledge in the IETF or (AFAIK) in academic journals. No, I don't think you discovered errors of any significance. Caveating my answers below as describing a contribution to a document (not a contribution in the wider IETF sense) > Why don't you consider discovering an error as a contribution? I would personally consider discovering a major error as something I would acknowledge it in a document I was editing. I would personally consider discovering multiple minor errors as something I would acknowledge it in a document I was editing. However, there is no requirement for editors to act in that way. Furthermore, you do not fit into these categories for this document. > Why don't you consider providing new ideas a contribution? I would consider providing major ideas as something I would acknowledge it in a document I was editing. I would consider providing smaller ideas through text for inclusion in the document as something I would acknowledge it in a document I was editing. You do not fit into these categories for this document. > What is your definition to contribution? As above, or written text that was included or modified for inclusion in a document and represents a material or substantial part of the document. > > 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*, I would borrow from 2026 and 5378 to say a material or substantial contribution to the document. And, before you ask, no-one is going to write down a rule that says 139 characters is not substantial, but 140 is. This is one of the places where a principal of reasonableness applies. I would know a major contribution if I saw one. I did not see one from you in this case. > >" 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). If you want to change the way that the IETF participants (and document authors/editors in particular) acknowledge reviews of their documents, then please start a separate thread or, better still, write an I-D and see whether you can gain consensus. The last time you brought this topic up on this list, I do not recall seeing support. The only reason I can find for someone being able to demand that they are named in an Acknowledgements Section is for conformance to the IETF's Rights policies. > > 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. Thank you for your opinion. Are you asserting that consensus on the readiness of this document for a publication request was incorrectly called by the working group chairs. This would be a serious allegation against the chairs and I would require evidence that there had been no consensus or that they had made an incorrect assessment of the consensus. Thank you, Adrian