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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Iván Arce <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Since when personal acknowledgements require WG consensus?
> What are the guidelines or IETF procedures that regulate what an
> author can or cannot put in the Acknowledgement section?
>
> I've looked for answers to those questions and found none.
>

I suspect we'll find that the reasons we don't have answers yet is because
this has never been a problem before. Now that it has been, we may end up
creating more process to prevent it. Sic transit gloria mundi :-)

FWIW, I opposed the proposed change because it is very clearly out of line
with the intention of the AUTH48 state.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/#auth48 says the authors are given
"to look over their document for errors".

Personally, every time I have been a document author I have strived to make
as few changes in AUTH48 as possible, because I felt that changing too much
was tantamount to abusing the trust of the working group and of the IETF in
whose names the document is published. The magic words are:

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.

I think acknowledgements to Diego Armando Maradona, your favourite deity,
sponsors, or the tooth fairy are all fine - as long as they are legitimate
expressions of WG consensus. Even if from a process perspective there is no
further WG stage beyond AUTH48, we as authors should always remember that
the documents are not ours, they're the WGs and the IETF's.