[auth48] [AD] RFC 9293 Fwd: FWD: Re: Protocol Action: 'Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification' to Internet Standard (draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt)

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

Martin,

Do you feel that John Klensin's suggestion below has been adequately 
considered?

Current:

Acknowledgments

    This document is largely a revision of RFC 793, of which Jon Postel
    was the editor.  Due to his excellent work, it was able to last for
    three decades before we felt the need to revise it.

    Andre Oppermann was a contributor and helped to edit the first
    revision of this document.


Perhaps:

Contributors

    This document is largely a revision of RFC 793, of which Jon Postel
    was the editor.  Due to his excellent work, it was able to last for
    three decades before we felt the need to revise it.

    Andre Oppermann was a contributor and helped to edit the first
    revision of this document.

Acknowledgments

    We are thankful for the assistance of the IETF TCPM working group
    chairs over the course of work on this document:


Best regards,
RFC Editor/jm


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	FWD: Re: Protocol Action: 'Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) 
Specification' to Internet Standard (draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt)
Date: 	Mon, 04 Apr 2022 22:50:58 -0400
From: 	John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
To: 	[e-mail]



Sorry... mistyped your address.
john


---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 22:36 -0400
From: John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
To: Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Protocol Action: 'Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP) Specification' to Internet Standard
(draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt)

--On Monday, April 4, 2022 15:02 -0700 The IESG
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> The IESG has approved the following document:
> - 'Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification'
> (draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt) as Internet Standard
> ...
> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis/

Hi.

Apologies for not looking carefully at this document until the
Protocol Action announcement appeared: I don't watch the
Transport Area closely and, in this case, had ample reason to
believe the effort was in good hands. Skimming it today
confirms that belief.

However, as someone who was co-author of a document that
replaced one of Jon's in the years immediately after his death,
I want to make an editorial suggestion (or more accurately, a
suggestion for an editorial suggestion).

In those early years, I'm aware of three substantive RFCs were
published for which most of the text and even more of the basic
concepts were Jon's. RFC 2471 lists him as an author but with
"Deceased" after his name). RFC 2978 also listed him as an
author but replaced his address with a note indicating his
passing and giving responsibility to the remaining co-author.
And the somewhat later RFCs 4288 and 4289, which made some
fairly major changes to the procedures that Jon had made
significant contributions to creating, used an acknowledgment
that indicated that he was not listed as an author because we
(the surviving authors) couldn't be sure he would have agreed
with what we have done.

As you probably know, the usual practice with technical
publications that represent new editions of a book or paper that
was written by a deceased author is close to the practice in
RFCs 2471 and 2978 than to what we did with 4288 and 4289,
although that had precedents as well. The other twist here is
that the concept of a "Contributors Section" was introduced
sometime before RFC 7322 was published in 2014 (see Section 4.11
of that document), at least partially as a way to recognize
those who had made very significant contributions of text or
ideas but who, for one reason or another, should not be held
responsible for the document in the way that we often assume RFC
authors are.

So, with the understanding that I consider the present
acknowledgment text to be excellent, I would strongly encourage
you to work closely with the RPC to think through both the
authorship and Contributor options with regard to Jon's
involvement and reach (and implement) whatever conclusions you
think best. I note from the current Acknowledgements section
that, should you go down the "Contributors" path, Andre
Oppermann might be another candidate.

Unless there are considerations within the WG, or were
discussions there on this topic, of which I am not aware, I'd
assume that this is almost entirely an editorial and Series
Style matter about the individual document.

thanks,
john


---------- End Forwarded Message ----------