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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 31 May 2019 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC2712024B for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Ra5J6liZz0PL for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7FC71201A3 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91AAFB8091E; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A60B8091E; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rAHVpVZ-CAms; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 990B2B8090D; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00BEC38185; Fri, 31 May 2019 11:25:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id BC22EE0A; Fri, 31 May 2019 11:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA9FDAF; Fri, 31 May 2019 11:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net>
In-Reply-To: <7CC388F3-360C-4CBC-99CE-B0D756C5E767@encrypted.net>
References: <30895.1559243194@localhost> <A66BF8D9-58AE-43A5-88D5-C6867E622B08@rfc-editor.org> <7CC388F3-360C-4CBC-99CE-B0D756C5E767@encrypted.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 11:26:58 -0400
Message-ID: <19806.1559316418@localhost>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] acknowledging reviewers name in RFCs
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7867797816377598275=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

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>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest