Re: [DNSOP] draft-hsyu-message-fragments replacement status updated by Cindy Morgan

Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org> Thu, 28 April 2022 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <muks@mukund.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1AA3C15E6E8; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 10:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mukund.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pUItzyQo3azR; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 10:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.mukund.org (mx.mukund.org [144.76.148.120]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9510C159A22; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 10:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 22:39:28 +0530
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mukund.org; s=mail; t=1651165774; bh=Gvg+iOAvalgY1qCPLOr4JMOGBWeqiDSDHQDjaLQxS/g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=HFA6uy6pHjJvQRNl3nTNd6Shx5rsRMfLmK18l8Ug1hlrd8Mw7PNT6HbId1K8SJgzx ol+n242l+PLbGB+CIyIr/F7kcnyeFNXt2ZO59ow/2hC12bI3UCSAVKkDp8rksSgeNC 8wT3yPJa63Sm6yeEa7sloSYuLLZmG2FThPxoFn84=
From: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org>
To: DraftTracker Mail System <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Cc: hsyu@biigroup.cn, hsyu@cfiec.net, yliu@cfiec.net, shane@time-travellers.org, songlinjian@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <YmrKSN5OSQh2/SQf@d1>
References: <165116358815.5877.9244565954759130167@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZtWSAOTusv9MTF2v"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <165116358815.5877.9244565954759130167@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/twY1KsWvUzzvm2dqt_CXSP0yQug>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-hsyu-message-fragments replacement status updated by Cindy Morgan
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 17:09:43 -0000

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 09:33:08AM -0700, DraftTracker Mail System wrote:
> 
> Please DO NOT reply to this email.
> 
> I-D: <draft-hsyu-message-fragments-00.txt>
> Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hsyu-message-fragments/
> 
> This document now replaces draft-muks-dnsop-message-fragments
>     draft-hsyu-dnsop-message-fragments instead of draft-hsyu-dnsop-message-fragments

This is the second time in recent years that, in a DNS draft I'd
primarily authored, I've noticed my name was removed from the list of
authors with no prior consultation with the document mostly the same.

I understand that we assign co-copyright to the IETF when publishing
drafts, but it feels unreasonable that after effort is put in writing a
draft, the authorship is completely deleted. In the previous case, I was
moved to "Acknowledgements" without consultation, and in this case my
name has been deleted fully.

New author(s) who want to take over could instead:

* Ask to be co-author(s).

* Say that they'd leave the original author(s) as-is, but that they
  would like to have control over the draft's future, and if the old
  author(s) don't like it, they may ask to be deleted.

* If content were significantly modified, they could say "This draft is
  significantly different from your old draft, and so we'd like to claim
  full ownership, is that OK?".

Instead, what happened with both drafts is akin to taking a book that's
mostly written by one author, contributing a few sentences, and deleting
the previous authors' names and calling it your own.

		Mukund