Re: The RFC Acknowledgement

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 2/11/13 2:34 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> Hi SM,
>
> thanks for your email, my reply inline;
>
> On 2/11/13, SM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi Abdussalam,
>>
>> Eric Burger provided some information about acknowledgements in a
>> message at
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77076.html  Fred
>> Baker shared his perspective in a message at
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71104.html
> I agree with them and never disagreed, I just gave a point of view,
>
>> At 23:47 10-02-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>>> Then from your opinion to be fare, I RECOMMEND that the RFC-section
>>> SHOULD be changed to *Authors' Acknowledgements*. Please note that the
>>> RFC is owned by the IETF so the section of ACK should not be only
>>> thanks of the authors or editors or Chairs, otherwise SHOULD be
>>> mentioned in title. IETF considers all inputs related to I-D as a
>>> contribution, please read the NOTE WELL. So do we understand that IETF
>>> is impolite with some of its contributors/workers?
>> I don't see anything in RFCs to point to the fact that "the RFC is
>> owned by the IETF".  The Note Well is about keeping the lawyers
>> happy.  I don't see what it has to do with impolite.  If your name
>> has been missed in the Acknowledgements Section you could send a
>> message to the author, with a copy to the document shepherd, about that.
> Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has
> no right to edit/amend a document that it is publishing? I
> misunderstand your point,
>
Once an RFC number is issued  and the document published, the content of 
that RFC never changes.

See RFC 2200 section 2