[OSPF] FW: IESG Statement on Internet Draft Authorship

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 12 June 2015 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22891AD33F for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bja7J8yhJO42 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B8E91A1B78 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4882; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1434137963; x=1435347563; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=kPrK63qT6voeYOtjIDw2oVZlhIt/VJ5JCVyTvOoklg0=; b=MVdKxMEOxB/ie5PKgsHQedOFQeqKMCneOHiNYlftg3cdEP9Bxfc4Pyxk I5p30rs7n+z3UV3Ms160EYlMo/20MlyDBuEXYYMQ864l9IrzwC7cMe9Om CYcfcF1XY5YZue0E/lAsTVyw+jrncbjf+zGoqYbeP2DmHmP+0pP+D0JEY 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,602,1427760000"; d="scan'208";a="158956637"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jun 2015 19:39:22 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5CJdMWS025021 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <ospf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:39:22 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:39:22 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: IESG Statement on Internet Draft Authorship
Thread-Index: AQHQpHTsyIh8cSLL7kauXzFccmqjw52o8KuggABmI4A=
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:39:21 +0000
Message-ID: <D1A0AD5A.2366C%acee@cisco.com>
References: <20150611183132.19747.75036.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C83B5C5A9E@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C83B5C5A9E@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <73D26CDA85F3A44E93C1A0F93303763B@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/WRW7_S6-I_G1PODEZVyPmjW3oGM>
Subject: [OSPF] FW: IESG Statement on Internet Draft Authorship
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:39:30 -0000

We haven’t had any problems with this in the OSPF WG but I’ll repost

>-----Original Message-----
>From: IETF-Announce [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:32 PM
>To: IETF Announcement List
>Subject: IESG Statement on Internet Draft Authorship
>The IESG has received some reports of IETF participants having been
>listed as document authors on drafts without their consent ("surprised
>authorship"). In some cases, the surprised authors had never seen the
>draft that surprised them. It appears that some draft authors think that
>including other participants as authors is a way to show support for the
>concepts in the document and gain acceptance for those concepts. This
>may be thought of as especially useful if the additional authors are
>established IETF participants.
>Adding names of IETF participants who did not actually work on a
>proposal might seem to be a low-risk way of demonstrating "support", but
>this is very clearly not an acceptable practice: no one should ever be
>added to the list of authors on a draft unless that person has consented
>to it and has contributed significantly to the development of the draft.
>The practice of adding surprised authors is
>  - not in line with the IETF culture, where it's the technical issues
>    that matter, not who the authors or supporters are;
>  - unethical, as it is wrong to claim support from someone who has not
>    consented to it;
>  - misleading in terms of support; and
>  - problematic in terms of IPR disclosures (BCPs 78 and 79).
>To emphasize this last point, the person submitting an Internet-Draft is
>asserting that "This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance
>with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79". A submitter who has not
>discussed this with all the listed authors cannot make that claim, and
>this can cause procedural and legal problems later.
>All authors need to be aware of the ​RFC Editor's statement on
>authorship [1], especially as it relates to responsibility for the
>document's contents. The IESG strongly recommends that all drafts have
>explicit permission from all authors to have their names listed before
>the draft is submitted.
>If you feel that you are impacted by the above issues, please talk to
>your Area Director or contact the IESG by ​sending email to
><iesg@ietf.org>f.org>. As the administrator of the I-D repository (regardless
>of the source or intended stream for the draft), the IESG will handle
>each case of disputed authorship on a case-by-base basis. All reports
>will be investigated, and substantiated claims will be met with
>corrective actions.
>The default corrective action will be the replacement of the offending
>draft with a "disputed authorship" tombstone. Such a tombstone would:
>  - Be published as a successor to the offending draft,
>  - Have the offended IETF participant listed as the only author,
>  - Will state "The author listed on this tombstone Internet-Draft has
>    stated that he/she should not have been listed as an author on the
>    previous version. The IETF considers being added as an author
>    without one's permission as unethical. The default behaviour of the
>    IESG in such cases is to approve replacement of the offending draft
>    with this tombstone. Please direct any queries to the author listed
>    here." 
>[1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2015-May/008869.html