Re: [urn] listed authors

Leslie Daigle <> Thu, 12 July 2012 01:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93FFD11E816F for <>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PO4mmKL-g1IL for <>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8B811E8161 for <>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Macintosh.local ([::ffff:]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by with esmtp; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:17:57 -0400 id 015D8170.4FFE25C5.000017E5
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:17:58 -0400
From: Leslie Daigle <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [urn] listed authors
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:17:29 -0000


In the general case, indeed, there are many potential complexities.

In these particular cases, most of them don't apply.

The "new" documents are largely the same as the old ones:  they are not 
rewritten from the ground up.  Instead, they have been updated to 
reflect particular points this group is discussing as changes to the 
spec -- not all of which may be kept for this WG's final version of the 

I, as one implicated author, and as chair of the original WG that 
produced these documents, would indeed find it very disrespectful to 
fail to acknowledge that properly in the updated documents.   And, I 
don't think it's reasonable to suggest that the IETF should support a WG 
rewriting that holus bolus as part of its process.

I think it's quite reasonable to list the current folks working on the 
documents as authors if they are authoring.

I think it's quite reasonable to see if the original authors are willing 
and able to continue to be listed (and responsive, eg during AUTH48) and 
responsible for document content.

I'm happy to help try to reach the various authors at current addresses. 
(Since they've already been asking _me_ about the outcome of this issue...).


On 7/4/12 9:47 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> I have mentioned this in the past, and I'll mention it again: I think
>> the new bis specs need to include the authors of the original documents,
>> with the new authors shown as editors. So, for instance,
>> draft-ietf-urnbis-2141bis would have the following in the header:
>> A. Hoenes, Ed.
>> R. Moats
>> Simply ripping the old authors out of the specs is disrespectful.
> Well, yes and no -- it's not that simple.
> First, I agree that the complete removal of the name of someone who
> contributed substantially to a document in any phase of its life
> (including a prior edition) would, indeed, be disrespectful... and
> unethical.
> But:
> 1. 2141bis (for example) is a product of the urnbis working group, and
> the chairs have complete control over who is listed at the top of the
> document.  They can remove someone's name for any defensible reason
> (subject, of course, to appeal), including that the person is no
> longer participating in the document's development.
> 2. Everyone who appears at the top of the document has to be reachable
> and responsive during AUTH48.  An AD can override that, but we prefer
> to avoid that and to list only those who we *do* expect to handle the
> AUTH48 process promptly.
> 3. An "Authors" section can and should be added to recognize the
> contributions of those who are or were authors of some version of the
> document, but who are no longer listed at the top.  This is where we
> can give due respect to a former author who is no longer active.
> Of course, as Juha says, it would be reasonable to ask the authors of
> prior versions how they would like to be recognized (and, I'll add,
> whether they will be available to review the final version and sign
> off during AUTH48).  That can certainly be input to the chairs'
> decision.  And anyway, if contacting a former author might bring more
> experienced eyes on the document and get more reviews and input,
> that's a good thing.  If we specifically think a former author will
> disapprove of where we've gone, that is NOT a reason to exclude him...
> in fact, it's that much more of a reason to get the input for
> consideration.
> Also, in this case, we have the odd situation that one of the chairs
> is far more active as a document editor than is usual, leaving it
> solely to the other chair to make these decisions.
> Barry
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list


      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle