Re: [tao-discuss] Fwd: Re: what to do about missing cites and encouraging better citing

Sounds good to me. Would you have concrete suggestions?

Best,

Niels

On 06/26/2018 10:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Forwarding this because it includes:
> 
>> I think a note on the IETF norms for referencing other RFCs to be a good 
>> thing to include in the Tao.
> 
> And maybe some of the waffle in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-whats-an-author would also fit in the Tao?
> 
>    Brian
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: what to do about missing cites and encouraging better citing
> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 13:24:12 -0700
> From: Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <rse@rfc-editor.org>
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> 
> On 6/25/18 12:52 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>> --On Sunday, June 24, 2018 17:14 -0700 Randy Bush
>> <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> but didn't detect great enthusiasm in the community for
>>>> dealing with authorship ethics in general.
>>> how embarrassing and shameful
>> Randy,
>>
>> While I agree that this is embarrassing and shameful (and could
>> add other words), I question one aspect of your earlier note.
>>
>> At least until the IAB decides to micromanage that, an erratum
>> and its appropriateness is determined by the discretion of the
>> RFC Series Editor.  The term is arguably not precisely correct
>> for the way we use the things and I've seen many of them whose
>> subject matter or content would not be appropriate if the
>> classic publisher definition were used.
>>
>> So I would recommend a conversation with Heather (copied) and
>> use of the errata mechanism, at least unless she strongly
>> disagrees and wants to propose another mechanism.  That would at
>> least get citation on the record.  While I'm not optimistic, if
>> author(s) are shamed sufficiently to not omit such citations in
>> the future, that would be A Good Thing.  I think all of us
>> should be encouraged to watch for obvious omissions on Last Call
>> and would encourage document shepherds and responsible ADs (in
>> the IETF Stream) and reviewers (in others) to pay attention to
>> the issue.
> 
> Heather does not disagree - the errata system is the best mechanism we 
> have at this time, and it does allow an author to respond as needed.
> 
>>
>> I would suggest to Heather that a mention of this as the Style
>> Guide evolves would probably also be a good thing -- it isn't as
>> if adding relevant citations is difficult or costly.
> 
> This is going to be a bit trickier. I'm supportive of adding something 
> about author ethics, but it would be along the lines of "the RFC Editor 
> will not be checking on this; you should do this because it's the right 
> thing." We don't have the resources to do a full-on review of the 
> literature; if the IETF wants that as a priority, we'll need to talk 
> about costs and/or reprioritizing other RFC Editor activities.
> 
> I think a note on the IETF norms for referencing other RFCs to be a good 
> thing to include in the Tao.
> 
> -Heather
> 
>>
>> We will probably never get everything right, but we can try
>> harder.
>>
>> best,
>>     john
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tao-discuss mailing list
> tao-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
Datactive Research Group
University of Amsterdam

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3