Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Tools to compile the framework draft

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

Please see my replies inline:


From: Teas-ns-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Eric Gray
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:40 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>om>; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=[e-mail]>rg>; [e-mail]; John E Drake <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Tools to compile the framework draft

Jie,

              As I recall, this was suggested (I believe, by you) at one of the design team meetings.

              Jari had answered this suggestion by stating that we should keep the list of “Authors” to a minimum and based on direct contributions to this draft (as opposed to text “lifted” from other drafts and RFCs).

[Jie] On that conference call, I volunteered to be one of the editors of the design team framework to help the alignment with the VPN+ framework. Jari said he wanted to keep the list of editors small, and I was OK with that. What I’m suggesting now is to be added as coauthor, based on the contribution to this draft.

I’m not sure what you mean by “direct contribution”, to my understanding, the contribution in IETF is evaluated by the text being provided and accepted.

              In particular, there is a need to leave room for other authors and contributors to be listed.

[Jie] Then what is the criteria of adding other authors or contributors? I guess it would also base on the text contribution they make.

              Before we are done, we will obviously need to ensure that we have properly attributed all sources of text (I anticipate adding a paragraph – along with the usual “thanks for reviewing” paragraph – to the ACK section), but being an author of a draft/RFC used as a source for a subsequent draft/RFC has never been justification for being explicitly listed as an author or contributor in the latter draft/RFC.  Otherwise, the list of “Authors” in any present-day draft would be very lengthy.  We simply state that (some subset of the) text was taken from the earlier work.

[Jie] Please note the coauthors of VPN+ framework draft are also participating in the on-going development of the design team framework, and if you remember I’ve been suggesting to reuse the VPN+ framework from the beginning of our framework discussion. The above case you mentioned usually applies when an earlier work is reused and the original authors no longer participate in the new work.

              Note that this applies generally to any text deliberately used from any earlier work.  There may be small sets of words or phrases that have been unintentionally re-used, or are required either as part of the template or RFC Editor ID requirements, that will most likely not be attributed.

              All of these considerations are – in part – why there is the IETF “Note Well.”

              The “direct” contribution in this case was from John Drake, who provided a guide to how to re-use the text from the enhanced VPN draft to fill in the skeletal draft provided by Jari.

[Jie] I really appreciate the support and guide from John on the reuse of VPN+ framework, while as I mentioned the major contribution in IETF is the text.

              As Jari also stated, all participants in the weekly meetings – or on the mailing list – are contributors to this work.  This is justified, because there is an opportunity for those participants to comment on the drafts in progress.  The same is true for the definitions draft.

              By the way, I am evaluating comments from at least two people (Xufeng and yourself) that were made on the mailing list for potential impact on the framework draft.  Unfortunately, I am a little busy right at the moment.  😊

[Jie] Looking forward to your feedback on the comments.


Best regards,
Jie

--
Eric

From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 9:46 PM
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=[e-mail]<mailto:jari.arkko=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; John E Drake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eric Gray <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: Tools to compile the framework draft
Importance: High

Hi Jari,

Thanks for your effort on this.

I checked the current version of the framework draft, many text of VPN+ framework draft is reused in the introduction, framework and security considerations sections, this is good for the alignment between the two drafts. Then it would be reasonable to add the author of VPN+ framework draft also to the author list of this document. Thanks.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Teas-ns-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 5:33 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; John E Drake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eric Gray <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Teas-ns-dt] Tools to compile the framework draft

I’ve finally managed to set up the framework draft compilation correctly. Struggled with some newer versions of tools. But the one I recommend and the associated makefiles work.

See the readme at https://github.com/teas-wg/teas-ns-dt/tree/master/framework<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=dbce027c-8747d86c-dbce42e7-0cc47ad93e2a-2b5fc923eca7e3c9&q=1&e=2f9bbdce-061b-46f3-87c3-307970015ce1&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fteas-wg%2Fteas-ns-dt%2Ftree%2Fmaster%2Fframework> for instructions; you’ll need to install make, kramdown-rfc2629, and xml2rfc but there are instructions. Then type make and the system compiles the .md to .txt automatically.

Jari