On 31/05/2015 04:54, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Saturday, May 30, 2015 10:14 -0500 David Farmer
> <farmer@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> On May 30, 2015, at 01:48, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> I like this draft, but I suggest that it apply to ALL RFCs
>>> (not just the IETF stream).
>> ...
>
>> Sorry but I disagree. Not ALL RFCs, to exemplify why, I think
>> the use of a humorous nom de plume or a sarcastic
>> acknowledgement would be perfectly legitimate for RFCs
>> published on a particular day in the spring.
>>
>> Authorship, contribution, and acknowledgement are serious and
>> important issues, but that is no reason to completely abandon
>> or exclude humor and sarcasm in appropriate doses.
>
> Indeed. In addition, I think the principle that each stream
> should have the option of following the IETF's lead but
> modifying it for local circumstances or striking out on its own
> is an important one to preserve for all sorts of reasons. There
> are also bits in the draft that I'd expect the RFC Editor might
> adopt as general policy, but, again, the principle that the RFC
> Editor and not the IESG, makes those decisions is important.
Yes. Maybe the draft could do a better job of separating issues
that are general ethical issues from those that are specific to
the IETF way of doing things.
I'm very open minded on what happens to the draft: possibly it should
just be added to the Tao, for example. The RFC Editor is welcome
to cherry-pick the text.
Brian
P.S. Eagle eyes may have noticed that I plain forgot to include
an acknowledgement to John Klensin, who sent me some very helpful
comments on the -00 draft.