Re: The RFC Acknowledgement

[SM <[e-mail]>]

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

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.

>It is not about bonuses, it is about truth I-D's influences and the
>way the IETF process and work progresses. Do you think an I-D
>progresses only if experts comment and contribute? don't think so,
>best ideas come from discussions of different level of experiences
>including zero,  :-)

This is what I saw in a draft: "The authors would like to thank 
Christian Jacquenet, Tim Winter, Pieter De Mil, David Meyer and 
Abdussalam Baryun for their valuable feed-back".  I note that there 
is only one person listed as an author.  If I suggest removing the 
"s" from author, should I be mentioned in the Acknowledgements Section?

There was a Last Call for draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-10.  There can be 
a DISCUSS on that draft because of an insignificant detail [1].  I 
don't really know whether it's worth an "acknowledgement".

Thomas Heide Clausen commented [2] about draft-cardenas-dff-09 
[4].  I don't know the person (zero reputation).  You also posted a 
review [3].  The first review is clearer.

Regards,
-sm

1. My guess is that the reviewer will catch it.
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77078.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77089.html
4. I glanced at the draft.  Section 2.2 is about 
terminology.  Section 14.1.1 also mentions terminology.  There are 
different definitions for "Address".