Hi, > On Jun 2, 2019, at 1:02 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:59 AM Heather Flanagan <rse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That said, I am unclear on what the expectation is with regards to the author list for a -bis document. If the original authors are retained in the author list, they will be requested to respond during AUTH48. It may be simpler to move them to contributors, and have someone be assigned as an editor for the -bis document. > > [Extensively trimming to focus just on this point]. > > It seems like the easiest way to manage this particular issue is to separate out the list of people who appear at the top (whether labelled as author or editor) from those who are consulted for AUTH48. For any given document, we could allow the authors and/or the WG chairs or ADs to identify a subset of the named authors/editors to serve as point for AUTH48. I know that this isn't traditionally what we do for RFCs, but it's not uncommon practice in other settings; for instance, it's routine for a subset of the authors to be responsible for producing the "camera ready" copy of papers for conferences.. > I think this is a very good idea. I have run into this a number of times where we were doing a new version of an old specification where we wanted to keep the original authors (because they were the major contributors) but they were no longer active in the IETF and didn’t want to be involved in the process. A list of AUTH48 authors could be added to what the w.g. chairs include in their writeup to the relevant ADs when advancing the document. I think to do this, it’s important to make an effort to contact the authors to verify this is OK with them. That’s what I did and they were fine without being involved in the w.g. discussion and AUTH48. Thanks, Bob
