Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 30 May 2015 13:21 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5FBC1A1A96 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2015 06:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id coteqflUlp0S for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2015 06:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01B3C1A1A87 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 May 2015 06:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1Yyghg-000JUh-PJ; Sat, 30 May 2015 09:21:32 -0400
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 09:21:27 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors
Message-ID: <2384191ACAC59543783BBC2C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <55699DBA.6010505@cisco.com>
References: <20150529205551.22495.73800.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2F99A0C05DFEE698A643FC97@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <55695EAC.80002@cisco.com> <719861006CF5B31670530E9E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <55699DBA.6010505@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/AwJGg9X_VDrLNx7hVrxWo7Mbn4U>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 13:21:35 -0000
--On Saturday, May 30, 2015 13:23 +0200 Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote: > Yes indeed, there are many different (corner) cases, > specifically related to the acknowledgment section. > An IESG statement must be concise, which makes it impossible > to take into account all potential situations. > You are right that, in the end, it's a judgment call. > > Removing the acknowledgment parentheses can be done, but this > would dilute the "misleading in terms of support" message. But the message is not "misleading in terms of support". Its title and the entire text other than that parenthetical note are about misrepresentation and false claims of authorship. If you really want it to be about "misrepresentation in terms of support", then I think there is a lot of rewriting to be done, including, e.g., addressing the question of whether or not an author should list an organizational affiliation (without disclaimers) when her organization has given her permission to develop the I-D but is either opposed to, or has taken no position on, the protocol. If one is worried about misrepresentations of support that is an equally important issue because, e.g., a reader might plausibly assume that Cisco supports anything you write that including a Cisco email and/or physical address (and that assumption would be correct for some companies). One could argue that the opposite is also true -- that, when I company is strongly pushing for a particular protocol or choices about a protocol, employees of that company (or those sponsored by it) are obligated to disclose that affiliation and the company's position. We've never insisted on that, but perhaps we should. In any event, it is another opportunity to open and discuss some rather complex issues. Suggestion, if you don't want to embark on a complete rewrite: (1) Remove the parenthetical note (2) Insert a comment early in the document, following Carsten's lead, that says, more or less, "It is inappropriate to lie in documents and, in particular, to make statements that are inaccurate or deceptive about participation and/or support", mentioning that issues can arise with authorship, affiliations, acknowledgments, and Contributions, as well as and in other areas and that there are circumstances in which omitting a name or disclosure that is significant can be as deceptive as including a misleading one. (3) Then indicate that the authorship issue is a particularly important case and make the rest of the statement about it, as it is now. john
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Toerless Eckert
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Jari Arkko
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors joel jaeggli
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Eliot Lear
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Benoit Claise
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Carsten Bormann
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Benoit Claise
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Harald Alvestrand
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors David Farmer
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Eliot Lear
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Eliot Lear
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Harald Alvestrand
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Eliot Lear
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John Levine
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Melinda Shore
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Melinda Shore
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Randy Bush
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John Levine
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Ted Lemon
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John R Levine
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors S Moonesamy
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Joe Abley
- RE: IESG Statement on surprised authors Tony Hain
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Ted Lemon
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John Levine
- RE: IESG Statement on surprised authors Tony Hain
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Warren Kumari
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Ted Lemon
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Warren Kumari
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Stewart Bryant
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Loa Andersson
- Re: proposed surprise hack, was IESG Statement on… John Levine
- Re: proposed surprise hack, was IESG Statement on… Ted Lemon
- Re: proposed surprise hack, was IESG Statement on… Warren Kumari
- Re: proposed surprise hack, was IESG Statement on… John R Levine