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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 02/12/2017 04:52 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> The RFC Editor clearly has final call.
> 
> However, I think this is an inappropriate use of the technical
> acknowledgements section of the document.  The purpose of that section
> is to acknowledge direct contributions to the document, such as
> performing significant review, providing useful pieces of text that do
> not rise to the level of document authorship, and other similar issues.
> We do not, for example, acknowledge all of the supporting developments
> and research, all of the open source implementations (or vendor
> implementations) that help us confirm that things work before
> publication, and the myriad other aspects that contribute to making an
> RFC from the IETF.

I usually ack those, too.

e.g., from RFC5927:
---- cut here ----
   Markus Friedl, Chad Loder, and the author of this document produced
   and tested in OpenBSD [OpenBSD] the first implementation of the
   counter-measure described in Section 7.2.  This first implementation
   helped to test the effectiveness of the ideas introduced in this
   document, and has served as a reference implementation for other
   operating systems.
---- cut here ----


e.g., RFC7217:
---- cut here ----
   Hannes Frederic Sowa produced a reference implementation of this
   specification for the Linux kernel.
---- cut here ----


Clearly, it's at the author's discretion whether to Ack those things.
Me, I think that a reference implementation is so important that it does
deserve credit.


I'd note, too, that many RFCs have credits to funding/grants. I wonder
why who threw money deserves more credit than who implemented a spec, or
who provided support in different ways.

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492