Message-Id: <9511161958.AA22181@noteserv.osi.COM>
To: snmp2 <snmp2@tis.com>
Cc: mlk <mlk@mlksys.atl.ga.us>, snmpv2 <snmpv2@tis.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John W Riley/OSI <John_W_Riley/OSI@noteserv-notes.osi.com>
Date: 16 Nov 95 11:45:27 EDT
Subject: Re: Status of SNMPv2 Documents
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain

On Wed, 15 Nov 1995, Marshall Rose wrote:

> perhaps there is some confusion here.
> 
> all four original authors remain authors.
> 
> however, they are listed in the authors section, not on the front page.

You are being intentionally misleading.

The real point is that every reference, citation, and bibliography will 
no longer contain the names of the 4 people who are responsible for the 
bulk of the work in these documents.  These references are more important 
than whether the names are on the front or last page.


Further, you say I am petty to delay the process.  I 
intend nothing of the sort.  The facts are:

    Several weeks ago I sent a message to Deirdre explaining why this was 
    unfair and requested that it be fixed.

    I received no reply or confirmation.

    A week later I resent the message and pleasantly requested her to act 
    on my response.

    I received no reply or confirmation.

    A week later I resent my message to the IESG and asked them to act on 
    it. It was not in response to the final call (implying that I was 
    bringing a process violation). Having been ignored by the Area 
    Director, I was simply escalating the issue to get some help.

No delay of the process was requested or is required.  If the request was 
acted upon, it would never have reached the IESG.

These facts are quite clear.  Please stop trying to mislead us.


Steve


====================================
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 22:25:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Steve Waldbusser <stevew@uni.ins.com>
To: iesg@cnri.reston.va.us
Subject: Authorship of SNMPv2 Specifications (fwd)


I have pursued the following matter through the proper channels but have 
not received any response from Deirdre Kostick. Please give this matter 
your attention.

Thanks,
Steve

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 04:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Waldbusser <stevew@uni.ins.com>
To: kostick@qsun.ho.att.com
Subject: Authorship of SNMPv2 Specifications (fwd)


Hi,

  A haven't gotten any response on this.  Please let me know the status.

Thanks,
Steve
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 12:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Waldbusser <stevew@uni.ins.com>
To: Deirdre Kostick <kostick@qsun.ho.att.com>
Subject: Authorship of SNMPv2 Specifications


Deirdre,

  This message is to formally request that we remedy a problem with the 
Internet Drafts in the SNMPv2 Working Group. I'm directing this to your 
attention because Bob Stewart says that you made the decision to change 
a policy as described below.

The problem is that the Internet Drafts submitted for publication as 
Draft Standard do not properly list the 4 authors of the 
specifications.  Readers of these documents will not find the author's 
names in the ID/RFC index, future bibliographic references, the title 
page, nor on the header/footer of the documents.

This is highly unusual and harms the authors of this document.  I
am one of those authors.

There should be no dispute over the fact that these 4 people are 
authors of these documents. We were the creators of these documents and 
have been listed as authors through the evolutions as a series of Internet 
Drafts, a series of RFC's, and another series of Internet Drafts. There 
has been no point in this process where a third party has introduced 
significant change that would put a question as to the authorship - the 
documents remain substantially similar to their previous revision as RFCs.

This is harmful to the authors as well as to their funding organizations, 
both of whom expect to be recognized for their contributions.  A 
significant amount of effort, money, and attention has been invested in 
this process by myself and my funding organizations and it is unfair that 
this contribution not be recognized.

This is a highly irregular policy for the IETF. Not only is it 
incompatable with past and current precedents, but it goes against the 
scholarly traditions of the IETF.  Finally, given that the IETF is 
a volunteer organization, such a policy is unwise because it takes away 
the one benefit such an organization can give to its key contributers.

This change was apparently made in response to a note you posted many 
weeks ago.  This request would have been made earlier except I assumed 
that your directive to change the authors was with respect to the subset 
of the documents that were being discussed at the time.  It never occured 
to me that you intended your note to refer to all of the documents, owing 
largely to the lack of sense in such a change.

Please give this matter your prompt attention and solve this problem.


Sincerely,
Steven Waldbusser