Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48 Sun, 12 February 2017 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F4612946E for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:50:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xsrQxdKq6X1H for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:50:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB77128824 for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:50:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2017 21:50:18 +0000
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B3CD788A; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:50:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=QF0uXfBw1rOAvdJPyZzdoLJTu5I=; b= Uf+12ZVaNGQf4FtuxCK+NA3dlq72OdPbGYO8Qq43JnGFMO3P69Z60FYMjdFecekY +jxNqr0DPrLdFYN5Gzg0i/4bqYafFSd7RvtrxS+KJCpCRjaxsDnfzM8JclJc7ohF qL2d0sIKTTAP3AGLttxUhK0bP+IJHNsvCkne13pnkd0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=Kb0hJ1xNNPaXIDaBDhqiuEr zrpywjXM9v8zj/soo+jD/7Rt+1r7JaCY8qrWYabKF2KnJkfaqLPcgNCZ3i93eXFD XDfFI0YPb7P0YQm44mjFa/WJqbWYvyubgdPFgGsK/QBaZFX9CLAvfR3iWZvMpnAB OnHOfAb1mNxDLffX1amk=
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A5ACFD7890; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:50:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6650A899D4F8; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:15 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4476BDA1-B8FA-41B5-A6F8-E59EF56E77A6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:14 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Fernando Gont <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>, Bob Hinden <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 21:50:21 -0000



> Me, I have always tried, to the extent that is possible, to give enough
> credit when it's deserved, because I understand that the product of my
> work heavily relies on the work, help, and support of other people.

I encourage you to read up on the IETF process.
The document is not yours. When a document is adopted by a working group change control is turned over to the working group.


> In the past, there have been cases in which I offered folks to be
> incorporated as co-authors because they had provided so much feedback
> and proposed text, that crediting them in any of the above ways was
> simply unfair. There have been cases, where folks never ended up editing
> a document, but since the contents weres so heavily based on
> brainstorming that we'd perform routinely, they were among the
> co-authors list. There was also at least one case when I asked
> the RFC-Ed if I could explicitly credit her for the edits, because her
> edits helped so much in improving the document (in that case, she kindly
> said "please no, I'm just doing my work).

The authors serve at the pleasure of the working group chairs.