Re: Status of SNMPv2 Documents

[Marshall Rose <[e-mail]>]

brian - 

first, lets look at that "acknowledgements" or "authors'" section shall
we?  i'll quote from your message:

>                 ----- draft-ietf-snmpv2-proto-ds-05.txt -----
> 
> 5.  Acknowledgements
> 
> This document is the result of significant work by the four major
> contributors:
> 
>      Jeffrey Case (SNMP Research, [e-mail])
>      Keith McCloghrie (Cisco Systems, [e-mail])
>      Marshall Rose (Dover Beach Consulting, [e-mail])
>      Steven Waldbusser (International Network Services, [e-mail])
> 
> In addition, the contributions of the SNMPv2 Working Group are
> acknowledged.  In particular, a special thanks is extended for the
> contributions of:
> 
> 
>      <list of mar95-interim-meeting-attendees, plus a few others>

to me this seems like ample credit for the people who submitted a set of
documents three years ago to the working group process.  there are
several rfcs which have had multiple primary contributors and are listed
with a single editor, e.g., host requirements.

as contentious as the host requirements wg was, i just can't imagine
people fight about "above the title" credits on the rfc.


> Second, the degree of changes made to the NON-Admin-Framework documents
> is hardly substantial enough to warrant stripping the original author's
> names from the front cover.  Further, none of the Admin documents are
> included from the current set of eight pre-existing Proposed Standard
> documents that are now subject to Last Call.

let's try to distinguish between credit and authorship, shall we?
frankly, i am just amazed over the fuss about this.  but then again, it
really is a prima facie example of how twisted things have gotten with
the gang-of-four's influence.


> Third, when the NM Area Director announced her intention to only put
> the editor's name on the front cover, it was in the midst of very 
> concentrated debate over the Admin Framework documents.  In that context,
> it was my understanding that this edict applied to the Admin Framework
> docuements.  I publically asked for clearification, but received no 
> response from the NM-AD... this was obviously a sensitive subject.

well, it was obvious to me what the NM AD meant in the message, but, i
didn't really appreciate how much of a threat this would be taken by the
gang-of-four until recent weeks...


> I was shocked when the "executive decision" was announced in October 
> that this action would apply to all of the documents; but by then, 
> I had become so frustrated with the political bull-xxxx going on that 
> I removed myself from further discussion on the mailing list. 

glad to see you back.



> In conclusion, I fully support such an action with respect to documents
> that have broad and substantial community contribution.  However, I do
> not find this to be the case with respect to the eight SNMPv2 documents
> currently before the IESG.

i can't parse, this sorry.


/mtr