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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 02/21/2017 10:25 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>> Is a statement like "I do not support" *without any rationale* of
>> value?
> 
> I think it's a fact. People, myself among them, said they didn't
> support it. The discussion, or at least most of it, was public.
> 
> I'll repeat my rationale. If one is filing an individual submission,
> and especially one through the independent stream, I suppose one can
> say in it pretty much what one wants. If we're discussing a working
> group draft, we are documenting the consensus of a working group. I
> don't recall the working group reviewing an acknowledgement of the
> members of a family

So, may I ask: what's the basis for assessing that?  Are you a family
member of every "Baker" out there?  And, besides, does that mean that if
you have a family member that happens to work in the same industry,
you're not allowed to Ack him/her?

Did anyone bother to ask, e.g., what was the rationale for adding the
acknowledgement I added?  Tell you what: two of the people that you
guessworked as my family members have funded my work. In fact, they even
funded the first IETF meeting I attended, at a time in which I was
unemployed.



> or a particular Argentine athlete (Diego
> Maradona); that text came in without review or consensus during
> AUTH48. Further, if one reviews the ~8000 RFCs that have already made
> it through the mill, none come to mind that contain such an
> acknowledgement. The people acknowledged in RFCs are people who
> commented on or otherwise made some contribution to the document.

Nobody bothered to ask what the ack was about. For instance, I noted
during AUTH48 (before this was made public) that two of the people I was
acking provided funding. -- and I've seen plenty of funding acks in
RFCs. (should I have said "money" or "funding" instead of "support"?
Would that have been acceptable?). -- and please note, I offered to
remove the (concerning, it seems) word "love", but that didn't make any
difference.

Besides, as I noted before, RFC1812 includes an excerpt from *a
Shakespeare's play* in the "Acknowledgements" section. Is that supposed
to be more "in place" than the text I added?


Bottom-line: I'm kind of surprised about this discussion. I don't know
when the Acks section of an RFC became a substantive part of a spec that
the wg cares about. That said, I've AUTH48-approved the document without
the Ack.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1