Re: [rfc-i] acknowledging reviewers name in RFCs

Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net> wrote:
    > To Michaels original question, I personally don't believe we should
    > require this information.

I am not taking a stand about *requiring* any controversial information.

I'm asking, if the information is present, that it be structured to be more
easily collected.

I don't think the WG chairs, AD and public reviewers are controversial, but
I'm open to opinions about what to actually include.

    > Who reviewed a doc becomes a "what
    > constitutes a review" discussion point, is it a long list that I as the
    > author has to maintain? What happens if someone's name doesn't show up
    > and we publish, but they want it included, do we generate an errata for
    > this? etc etc. I think we all have enough to do today, including the
    > RPC, and I don't need another mandatory section for me to have to
    > maintain. What's wrong with the ad hoc way it is?

1) The question of being left out is a question that can occur right now.
   Some automation would mean not leaving out things the DT knows about,
   so that would be good.

2) right now, we don't do any kind of validation of the names.  Names can
   show up without people's permission.... I can anything I like.  I could put:

            The authors would like to thank S. Banks for an extensive review
            of the benchmarking that went into justifying this work.

in my Acknowledgements of an obscure draft in an area you don't work in, an
appeal to your authority, and unless someone thought to ask you if you did
that, you'd probably never know.  If the Acknwowledgement is structured, then
the DT could link them all together, and let you know.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

Re: [rfc-i] acknowledging reviewers name in RFCs

Attachment: signature.asc