Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sun, 12 February 2017 21:10 UTC
Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 2A723129B5B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:10:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 SJumQMM4V9sm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:10:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39B5012940D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:10:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1291:200:42e::2] (cl-1071.udi-01.br.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:1291:200:42e::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30B618026B; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:10:50 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <C9FDAEB9-9F79-4186-9C48-5F44E5E07235@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <2c970446-545b-edc7-178d-5526f2712eda@si6networks.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:10:24 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C9FDAEB9-9F79-4186-9C48-5F44E5E07235@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/VJvR0aZm-9Kdpl_NtEbUfDqUUFQ>
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 21:10:56 -0000
On 02/11/2017 02:28 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: > Hi, > > <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> is currently in AUTH48. > According to the datatracker it has been in the RFC Editor queue for > 54 days. Everything is done, except there is an impasse over a > change to the Acknowledgement Section. One of the authors has > proposed adding: > > Fernando Gont would like to thank Nelida Garcia and Guillermo Daniel > Gont for their love and support, and Jorge Oscar Gont and Diego > Armando Maradona for their inspiration. > > Some of the other authors don’t think this change is appropriate for > AUTH48, but the author proposing this has insisted on adding this > text. Your description is not quite accurate. I added this text along with other modifications during AUTH48. Three out of four co-authors approved the document, and only one co-author (Alissa Cooper) refused to approve the document unless this text was tossed. I never "insisted" in adding the text. I added the text, and everyone else (modulo Alissa) approved the document. Alissa's rationale was, essentially: * this make me feel uncomfortable, because I will have to explain why I didn't add a similar ack for my people * this will set a precedent in RFCs -- which is not really true. Plenty of my RFCs have similar notes, and for instance, please take a look at RFC1812. I should say that I was quite surprised by Alissa's position on this (even more when I did 98% of all the edits in the document, and quite a few times I had to insist on co-authors joining the wg discussions, since I was the only author involved in them). 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. If you look at past RFCs I have co-authored, you will not only find acknowledgements similar to the ones I added to this document, but will also find: * credit to folks that implemented what's being specified in the document. * explicit credit for ideas that were incorporated based on the findings of specific individuals * credits to folks that have provided connectivity or access to systems that were of use to test things or evaluate things being discussed in a document * that folks that provided extremely detailed feedback are singled out (that's the reason for the fist two separate paragraphs in this RFC). 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). I'm kind of astonished that people are voicing opinions on this topic without even asking anything along the lines of "could you explain what/how they contributed?". It would seem that some people seem to think that if there's a relationship with the people being Ack'ed (or the last name is shared), then I should not be allowed to credit them, which is quite curious (and wrong). On the other hand, plenty of RFCs have notes (in the Acknowledgements setion) giving credit e.g. to grants (e.g. "This work was supported by grant #..."). I don't really understand the basis on which someone throwing money at some project deserves more credit than other people providing any other kind of support. But in any case, the first two people I ack'ed (Nelida Garcia and Guillermo Gont), did provide funding, too. (In fact, it was thanks to them that I attended my first IETF meeting). And Guillermo, in particular, helped me in producing the diffs that were once included in the document, but later removed. I understand and respect that people are entitled to have an opinion regarding anything in life. Now, their ability to just toss acknowledgents because "I do not support" or "I don't like it" seems like something else. It doesn't feel right of fair for people to decide to toss deserved acknowledgements just because "they don't like it". And since I have seen (in an Acks section) virtually everything from acknowledging funding organizations and grants to a piece of play by Shakespeare (in RFC1812), a decision to toss deserved credit simply seems arbitrary to me. And yes, it's a shame the extra delay, and particularly, the reason for it. -- feels even worse for the guy that did virtually all the edits in the document (me). I think pretty much everything I have to say on the topic is said above. So I will not comment further, unless required. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
- Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> i… Bob Hinden
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Fred Baker
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Fred Baker
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Sander Steffann
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Enno Rey
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… t.petch
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… otroan
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Fernando Gont
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Fernando Gont
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Fernando Gont
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Sander Steffann
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Fernando Gont
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… otroan
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Fernando Gont
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… otroan
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Fernando Gont
- Be professional and respectful (was Re: Status of… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Alissa Cooper
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Fernando Gont
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Bless, Roland (TM)
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Sander Steffann
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… 神明達哉
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Bob Hinden
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Fernando Gont
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Fred Baker
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Fernando Gont
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Iván Arce
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… sthaug
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Iván Arce
- Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.tx… Lorenzo Colitti