Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 31 May 2015 15:51 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 8B1361A037B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 May 2015 08:51:14 -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 gnFbc5eKblM9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 May 2015 08:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.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 0B0751A0379 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 May 2015 08:51:13 -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 1Yz5W3-000O2H-Hn; Sun, 31 May 2015 11:51:11 -0400
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 11:51:06 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <kreeger@cisco.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors
Message-ID: <003FB1C709725C8BDD35C916@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <D18E2F33.14965E%kreeger@cisco.com>
References: <20150529205551.22495.73800.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D18E2F33.14965E%kreeger@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/NtEY-pn9dcjWmqUXBeAjr-ClK5U>
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: Sun, 31 May 2015 15:51:14 -0000
--On Friday, May 29, 2015 22:07 +0000 "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <kreeger@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Brian and Benoit, > > If authors are added purposefully to a draft without their > consent, it is indeed disturbing, but I hate to see IETF > cycles spent dealing with investigations if they can be > avoided in an automated manner. > > Isn't one way to deal with this to build additional mechanisms > into the draft submittal confirmation procedure? I believe > that currently, only one of the author's needs to approve > submission/update. If this were changed to require all > authors to confirm the original submission, then it would save > people-hours investigating and dealing with this. When > submitting an updated draft, only a single author would need > to approve if the author list didn't change. Of course, newly > added authors would need to approve as well if the updated > draft included a new author. Larry, In principle this is very attractive (and has been suggested before). In practice, it illustrates how much trouble we get into when we start making very specific rules and then incorporating them into even more specific tools. Consider, for example, a draft that is actually a revision of an existing RFC, changing a few details, perhaps adding a critical explanatory paragraph, but leaving virtually all of the original text (and perhaps all of an original protocol specification) intact. Our existing guidelines, usual practices, and draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-01 all suggest leaving the original author as an author on the revised version. After all, she is that one who, in the words of Brian's draft, made "a substantial creative contribution to the document", indeed may have written most of it. But suppose that author has dropped out of the IETF and cannot be easily reached? Suppose that author, if reached, had a significant objection to the changes, the idea of a revision [1], or the author of the new text? I have an opinion about how situations like that should be handled, but it involves subjective elements, edge cases, etc. It won't work well with a tool. Could your idea be made to work with a "manual posting by secretariat" exception? Yes, but then we would have be punishing the people who are behaving well with delays at least and maybe creating the need for the Secretariat or IESG to do an investigation. Perhaps that would be the best opinion anyway (these cases are not common although they may become more so as authors age), but my point is that this sort of problem is more complicated than one at which simplistic tools can be thrown without creating other problems. john p.s. Brian, your draft really needs to address I-Ds that are revisions of existing RFCs even if all you say is "more complicated". [1] The IPR rules do not permit the authors of an RFC in the IETF Stream to block publication of an IETF Stream revision or update of that document. The current discussion seems to suggest that they should be able to insist on having their names removed as authors, which is fine. The question of whether, if they wrote most of the original (and retained) text, they can also insist on not being acknowledged seems to me to be fairly clear (and clearly "no") in the IPR rules although the issues such a request raises are examples of why I object to wading into the Acknowledgment swamp with a parenthetical note. But, if their wishes cannot be reliably obtained... well, we better not have a restrictive rule or tool that assumes that reliably obtaining those wishes is easy and straightforward in all cases.
- 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