Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48

otroan@employees.org Sun, 12 February 2017 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F4612946E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:50:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 xsrQxdKq6X1H for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:50:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB77128824 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:50:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2017 21:50:18 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B3CD788A; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:50:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; 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; d=employees.org; 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 h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A5ACFD7890; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:50:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6650A899D4F8; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:15 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <9E1C2279-A297-4CB0-BAA7-2FA20A566057@employees.org>
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: <2c970446-545b-edc7-178d-5526f2712eda@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <C9FDAEB9-9F79-4186-9C48-5F44E5E07235@gmail.com> <2c970446-545b-edc7-178d-5526f2712eda@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9vS5A1KiYz1N6AJwh0e0OOF1qUY>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 21:50:21 -0000

Fernando,

[...]

> 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.

Cheers,
Ole