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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sun, 12 February 2017 21:33 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 4392912944F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:33:43 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 Dg9G7YwZg9QB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E67D129B5E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:33:42 -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 A9D15828F8; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:33:38 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
References: <C9FDAEB9-9F79-4186-9C48-5F44E5E07235@gmail.com> <1be095d0-8165-b127-9dbb-5a9d06d7d141@gmail.com> <38230048-c3ed-7cc1-cd26-9cd4444c2bb8@joelhalpern.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <358ac3b9-de26-ee7c-005a-e3a1c93cc02b@si6networks.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:33:28 -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: <38230048-c3ed-7cc1-cd26-9cd4444c2bb8@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yYbUU_e__UKhXuGsuXM3jLkfFJw>
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 21:33:43 -0000

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: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492