Re: How IETF treats contributors

Ted Hardie <> Mon, 30 August 2004 17:08 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09231; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C1pfp-0000KE-8n; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:10:29 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C1pTH-0007YU-9H; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:57:31 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C1pOV-0006kv-My for; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:52:36 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07991 for <>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:52:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C1pQI-0008Qz-MH for; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:54:28 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id i7UGpv1i024271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id i7UGptRE007397; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06110403bd5906118d89@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:51:54 -0700
To: Hadmut Danisch <>,
From: Ted Hardie <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Subject: Re: How IETF treats contributors
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793

At 11:06 AM +0200 8/30/04, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
><original cut here>
>But in my opinion, the least a contributor can expect is that
>derivative work based on his contribution does acknowledge and cite
>the contribution correctly and does not pass the contribution as
>someone else's work. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>The SenderID core draft does not cite RMX adequatly.
>I have asked the MARID and ASRG chairs that RMX is cited correctly
>when turning the SenderID draft into an RFC. They denied. It's a
>commercial Microsoft and Pobox show.

The current MARID core draft contains the following
acknowledgement section:

    9. Acknowledgements

       Variations on the idea of using a DNS record to check the legitimacy
       of an email address have occurred multiple times. The earliest known
       work is [Vixie]; others include [RMX], [SPF] and [CallerID].

       The current document borrows heavily from each of the above, and
       incorporates ideas proposed by many members of the MARID working
      group.  The contributions of each of the above are gratefully

RMX was submitted to the IETF as subject to all provisions of section 10
of RFC 2026, which means it allowed the IETF to create derivative works.
It was cited as an input draft to the MARID working group,
and it was recommended for publication as an Experimental RFC with
the other input drafts that came out of the ASRG process.  In other words,
the IETF took you up on your offer to consider the draft seriously and
to use it as input into the evolving standard in this area.  My view
is that the current editors of the working group drafts have done what
they should to cite Paul Vixie, you, and the original SPF and Caller-ID
drafts as antecedents to the current draft.   This draft is an evolution
of a lot of thinking by a lot of people, and many members of the working
group will be acknowledged only implicitly, as is common for many
IETF drafts.  I hope all of the participants understand, though, that
their work is appreciated.  We're all here to make sure that the Internet
runs and develops as best it can; and while acknowledgements are
important, I hope we all see a thriving Internet as our real reward.

				Ted Hardie

Ietf mailing list