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

Fernando Gont <> Sun, 12 February 2017 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4392912944F for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:33:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dg9G7YwZg9QB for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E67D129B5E for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1291:200:42e::2] ( [IPv6:2001:1291:200:42e::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (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" <>, Brian E Carpenter <>,
References: <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492