Re: ietf Digest, Vol 83, Issue 61

[German Alberto Zelayandia <[e-mail]>]

recibido
On Apr 21, 2015, at 10:53 AM, [e-mail] wrote:

> Send ietf mailing list submissions to
> 	[e-mail]
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	[e-mail]
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	[e-mail]
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ietf digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
>      (manning bill)
>   2. Re: Drafts that can't be serious (Carlos Vera Quintana)
>   3. IAOC Member Resignation (IETF Administrative Director)
>   4. Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
>      (Behcet Sarikaya)
>   5. Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
>      (Fred Baker (fred))
>   6. Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
>      (John C Klensin)
>   7. Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
>      (Fred Baker (fred))
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:40:44 -0700
> From: manning bill <[e-mail]>
> To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> 
> then there is the problem of folk who insist on being listed as co-authors even when they have contributed nothing to
> the text or the idea.
> 
> if co-authors are ?confirmed? automatically, the problems will not go away or be fixed..
> 
> /bill
> PO Box 12317
> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
> 310.322.8102
> 
> On 21April2015Tuesday, at 4:26, Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Be nice if the posting tool confirmed co-author(s) whenever a co-author(s) is "new" (all would be new for -00). This would require keeping a database of the drafts and co-authors.
>> 
>> - Bernie (from iPad)
>> 
>>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:46 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I?m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I?m bringing it here. Happy to be redirected.
>>> 
>>> I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being listed as an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and in some cases, that I hadn?t even seen. In most cases, I have been able to get the putative co-author to remove my name in a -01 version. I can point to at least one draft that I didn?t initially agree to co-author, was unsuccessful in getting my "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up largely re-writing, which involved a lot of work. I?m not alone in this; various people have complained of third parties listing them as co-authors on drafts without their consent.
>>> 
>>> I?m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco colleagues, who found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they didn?t know anything about in one working group, got their names off the draft, and then discovered their names on a related draft in another working group. It seems to me that an ethical line was crossed in the interest of showing support for a concept.
>>> 
>>> First, I?d like to believe that this isn?t an acceptable practice. I?d like to believe, shock of shocks, that a co-author is first someone that has agreed to co-author, and is someone that has text or at least concepts that are included in the draft.
>>> 
>>> Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple approach would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, the authors are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the draft actually gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or on the web. What would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all of the co-authors to positively respond, and have the posting fail if they don?t, or if any responds negatively?
>>> 
>>> This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I understand an address changing in a later version of a draft ([e-mail] becomes [e-mail]) and being missed in a draft update, but I don?t understand an incorrect address on the -00 version.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:06:53 -0500
> From: Carlos Vera Quintana <[e-mail]>
> To: Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Drafts that can't be serious
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
> 
> This should be made by hand, I guess, due to nature and policy of discussions here.
> 
> Carlos Vera Quintana
> 0988141143
> S?gueme @cveraq
> 
> El 20/4/2015, a las 10:04, Doug Ewell <[e-mail]> escribi?:
> 
>>> From "New and Revived Drafts" this morning:
>> 
>> draft-pkx-infobirdiconswww-04, "Information as a bird with wings that
>> flies and hits the user device screen as Icons":
>> 
>> "No one has contacted me regarding this project and i see the same
>> criminal hands of repulsives in palakkad that has attacked me in Jan
>> 2010 and Oct 2013, criminal doctors and their businesses that need to be
>> stopped and those who attacked me executed. They have diagnosed me as a
>> schizophrenic to steal and expend my wealth and they need to be executed
>> for attacking me.I am a healthy heterosexual unable to live with a woman
>> since 2001 because of cybercrime because money send to me is stolen"
>> 
>> draft-emaillogger-02, "Email provider should provide email owner an
>> audit log":
>> 
>> "Its a shame that these are not implemented a group trying to murder me
>> or make me a disabled and preventing me from leading my life in
>> California. Anyone can own this and use their resources to implement
>> these, they can just email me. As i am writing this out of my own
>> requirement, i demand my personal wealth not used to maintain ietf.org
>> or to send emails. Its my impression that they are self sufficient. I
>> would work on these when i have my money in my bank at my speed"
>> 
>> Is there a filter that the IETF can apply to defer the posting of drafts
>> like this until the next April 1?
>> 
>> --
>> Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO ??
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:58:31 -0700
> From: IETF Administrative Director <[e-mail]>
> To: "IETF Announcement List" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: IAOC Member Resignation
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> All;
> 
> Chris Griffiths, the IAOC Chair, submitted his resignation today
> from the IAOC and IETF Trust effective immediately.
> 
> The NomCom has been notified of the vacancy.
> 
> In accordance with the IAOC Administrative Procedures* Tobias
> Gondrom, the IETF Trust Chair, will assume the role of Acting Chair
> of the IAOC.  There will be an announcement when an IAOC Chair has
> been elected by the IAOC.
> 
> We want to thank Chris for his service on the IAOC since 2012 and
> his leadership as IAOC chair for the last two years.
> 
> Ray
> 
> IAD
> 
> *
> https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IAOC-Administrative-Procedures-9-16-
> 2010.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:51:28 -0500
> From: Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
> To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
> Message-ID:
> 	<[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I?m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I?m bringing it here. Happy to be redirected.
>> 
>> I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being listed as an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and in some cases, that I hadn?t even seen. In most cases, I have been able to get the putative co-author to remove my name in a -01 version. I can point to at least one draft that I didn?t initially agree to co-author, was unsuccessful in getting my "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up largely re-writing, which involved a lot of work. I?m not alone in this; various people have complained of third parties listing them as co-authors on drafts without their consent.
>> 
>> I?m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco colleagues, who found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they didn?t know anything about in one working group, got their names off the draft, and then discovered their names on a related draft in another working group. It seems to me that an ethical line was crossed in the interest of showing support for a concept.
>> 
>> First, I?d like to believe that this isn?t an acceptable practice. I?d like to believe, shock of shocks, that a co-author is first someone that has agreed to co-author, and is someone that has text or at least concepts that are included in the draft.
>> 
> 
> I agree with the problem above.
> What is the percentage of drafts with such "co-authors"?
> 
>> Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple approach would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, the authors are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the draft actually gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or on the web. What would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all of the co-authors to positively respond, and have the posting fail if they don?t, or if any responds negatively?
>> 
> 
> I think this would be overkill.
> Of course it depends on the frequency of the times this happens. My
> guess is a very small 0.001 or something like that percentage.
> Otherwise we end up slowing down the submission process and make it
> almost impossible to meet the deadline due to irresponsive co-authors.
> 
> One positive result could be that we get drafts with less number of authors :-)
> 
> Behcet
>> This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I understand an address changing in a later version of a draft ([e-mail] becomes [e-mail]) and being missed in a draft update, but I don?t understand an incorrect address on the -00 version.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:35:57 +0000
> From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>
> To: Eric Gray <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> 
>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Eric Gray <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> it would be possible to ambush a working group with a -00 draft that
>> makes the posting cut-off but is not available until the last possible moment.  All a person
>> would need to do is to hold off on confirming their authorship until then.
> 
> It seems that would work against the author of the draft.
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 487 bytes
> Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
> URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/attachments/20150421/d195e713/attachment.asc>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:45:45 -0400
> From: John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
> To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>, Eric Gray
> 	<[e-mail]>
> Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
> Message-ID: <0D0EF1A5C77E8DCE289755A8@JCK-EEE10>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, 21 April, 2015 16:35 +0000 "Fred Baker (fred)"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Eric Gray
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> it would be possible to ambush a working group with a -00
>>> draft that makes the posting cut-off but is not available
>>> until the last possible moment.  All a person would need to
>>> do is to hold off on confirming their authorship until then.
>> 
>> It seems that would work against the author of the draft.
> 
> And WG Chairs have, IMO, more than enough authority to leave
> drafts off agendas if there has not been enough time, in
> practice, for the WG to consider them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:52:53 +0000
> From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> 
>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> What is the percentage of drafts with such "co-authors"?
> 
> The available evidence is anecdotal.
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 487 bytes
> Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
> URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/attachments/20150421/1ffaeb43/attachment.asc>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of ietf Digest, Vol 83, Issue 61
> ************************************