Internet Engineering Task Force = (IETF)

48377 Fremont Blvd., = Ste. 117
Fremont, California 94538 / USA
T: = +1.510.492.4082
F: +1.510.492.4001
www.ietf.org

= --Apple-Mail-1--502679953-- From wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com Fri Jan 13 11:30:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietf.org Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id AFB0621F8448; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:30:29 -0800 (PST) From: IETF Secretariat To: IETF Announcement list Subject: IETF 83 - Registration and Hotel Reservation Cut-off Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20120113193029.AFB0621F8448@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:30:29 -0800 (PST) Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, 83all@ietf.org, irsg@irtf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:30:29 -0000 83rd IETF Meeting Paris, France March 25-30, 2012 Host: TBD Meeting venue: Le Palais des Congres de Paris http://www.viparis.com/Viparis/exhibition-paris/site/Palais-Congres-Paris-Paris/en/4 Register online at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/83/ 1. Registration 2. Visas & Letters of Invitation 3. Accommodations: Le Meridien Reservation Cut-off is January 23, 2012 4. Companion Program 1. Registration A. Early-Bird Registration - USD 650.00 Pay by Friday, 16 March 2012 1700 PT (UTC -7) B. After Early-Bird cutoff - USD 800.00 C. Full-time Student Registrations - USD 150.00 (with proper ID) D. One Day Pass Registration - USD 350.00 E. Registration Cancellation Cut-off for registration cancellation is Monday, 19 March 2012 at 1700 PT (UTC -7). Cancellations are subject to a 10% (ten percent)cancellation fee if requested by that date and time. F. Online Registration and Payment ends Friday, 23 March 2012,1700 local Paris time. G. On-site Registration starting Sunday, 25 March 2012 at 1100 local Paris time. 2. Visas & Letters of Invitation: Information on Visiting France, please visit: http://www.consulfrance-sanfrancisco.org/spip.php?rubrique201 After you complete the registration process, you can request an electronic IETF Letter of Invitation. You may also request one at a later time by following the link provided in the confirmation email. Orange has graciously offered to provide letters of invitation (LOIs) for those who needs visas to enter France. In order to add this functionality, the letter of invitation system will be offline next Tuesday (Monday is a holiday in the United States). We expect to start providing IETF and Host LOIs on Wednesday of next week, and will send a notice out as soon as the system is operational. 3. Accommodations The IETF is holding blocks of guest rooms at 2 hotels in Paris: The Hotel Concorde La Fayette (Headquarter Hotel - connected to meeting venue) and the Le Meridien Etoile (directly across the street from the meeting venue) Room rates include one complimentary daily buffet breakfast and complimentary in-room high-speed Internet access. All service fees and VAT are included in guest room rates. NOTE: Continental Breakfast will NOT be served at the meeting venue. Reservations Cut off Date: 23 January 2012 at the Le Meridien 09 March 2012 at Hotel Concorde ****Cancellation Policy at Le Meridien**** Guest Cancellation: - There is no charge if room is cancelled prior to March 2012 - There is a one night charge for cancellations made between 09 March and 23 March 2012 - If the room is cancelled from 23 March 2012 or if the guest is a "no-show" then the amount of the entire stay will be charged onto the guest's credit card. Early Departure Fee: Early departure will be charged for the duration of the stay as reserved if changes are made after March 23, 2012. Guest Substitution: Guest name substitute may be made by contacting Corinne Vissenberg . ****Cancellation Policy at Hotel Concorde*** Reservation Deposit and Cancellations: - Guaranteed reservations will be held until the night of the arrival date. - Guests will be be charged 1 night's stay and tax at the time the reservation is made. - 15 days prior to scheduled arrival the guest's credit card shall be charged for an additional 2 nights stay and tax which is non-refundable. Guest Cancellation: - Guest will forfeit the non-refundable deposit paid as of the date of the cancellation. Guest Substitution: - Guests may substitute names for reserved rooms without penalty. Early Departure Fee: - In the event of early departure, the guest will be charged for the remainder of their stay. Should the room nights be re-sold, the guest will be refunded for the resold room nights. For additional information on rates and policies, please visit: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/83/hotel.html 4. Companion Program If you are traveling with a friend or family member over 18 years of age you can register them for the IETF Companion Program for only USD 15.00 Benefits include: - A special welcome reception for companions from 1630-1730 on Sunday, 25 March - Ability to attend the official Welcome Reception from 1700-1900 on Sunday, 25 March - A distinctive meeting badge that grants access to the venue (not to be used to attend working sessions) - Participation in a separate companion email list if you choose to help communicate and make plans with other IETF Companions. You can register your companion at any time via the IETF website or onsite at the meeting. To join the 83 companions mailing list see: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/83companions Only 71 days until the Paris IETF! From wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com Tue Jan 17 08:54:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietf.org Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 39CEA21F86FE; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:54:51 -0800 (PST) From: IETF Agenda To: Working Group Chairs Subject: 83rd IETF - Working Group/BOF Scheduling REMINDER Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20120117165451.39CEA21F86FE@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:54:51 -0800 (PST) Cc: irsg@irtf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:54:51 -0000 83rd IETF Paris, France Meeting Dates: March 25-30, 2012 Host: TBD ----------------------------------------------------------------- IETF meetings start Monday morning and run through Friday afternoon (13:30). We are accepting scheduling requests for all Working Groups and BOFs starting today. The milestones and deadlines for scheduling-related activities are as follows: NOTE: cutoff dates are subject to change. - 2012-01-30 (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group meetings at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). To request a Working Group session, use the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool. - 2012- 02-13 (Monday): Cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to Area Directors at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). To request a BOF, please see instructions on Requesting a BOF. - 2012-02-16 (Thursday): Cutoff date for Area Directors to approve BOFs at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). - 2012-02-23 (Thursday): Preliminary agenda published for comment. - 2012-02-27 (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to reschedule Working Group and BOF meetings 17:00 PT (UTC -8). - 2012-03-02 (Friday): Final agenda to be published. - 2012-03-14 (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. - 2012-03-19 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. - 2012-04-27 (Friday): Proceedings submission cutoff date by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. - 2012-05-16 (Wednesday): Proceedings submission corrections cutoff date by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. Submitting Requests for Working Group and BOF Sessions Please submit requests to schedule your Working Group sessions using the "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool," a Web-based tool for submitting all of the information that the Secretariat requires to schedule your sessions. The URL for the tool is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_session_requester.cgi Instructions for using the tool are available at: http://www.ietf.org/instructions/session_request_tool_instruction.html Please send requests to schedule your BOF sessions to agenda@ietf.org. Please include the acronym of your BOF in the subject line of the message, and include all of the information specified in item (4) of "Requesting Meeting Sessions at IETF Meetings" in the body. (This document is included below.) Submitting Session Agendas For the convenience of meeting attendees, we ask that you submit the agendas for your Working Group sessions as early as possible. Draft Working Group agendas are due Wednesday, March 14, 2012 by 17:00 PT. Revised Working Group agendas are due no later than Monday, March 19, 2012 at 17:00 PT. The proposed agenda for a BOF session should be submitted along with your request for a session. Please be sure to copy your Area Director on that message. Please submit the agendas for your Working Group sessions using the "IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool," a Web-based tool for making your meeting agenda, minutes, and presentation slides available to the community before, during, and after an IETF meeting. If you are a BOF chair, then you may use the tool to submit a revised agenda as well as other materials for your BOF once the BOF has been approved. The URL for the tool is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_proceedings.cgi Additional information about this tool is available at: http://www.ietf.org/instructions/meeting_materials_tool.html Agendas submitted via the tool will be available to the public on the "IETF Meeting Materials" Web page as soon as they are submitted. The URL for the "IETF 83 Meeting Materials" Web page is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/83/materials.html If you are a Working Group chair, then you already have accounts on the "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool" and the "IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool." The same User ID and password will work for both tools. If you are a BOF chair who is not also a Working Group chair, then you will be given an account on the "IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool" when your BOF has been approved. If you require assistance in using either tool, or wish to report a bug, then please send a message to: ietf-action@ietf.org. =============================================================== For your convenience, comprehensive information on requesting meeting sessions at IETF 83 is presented below: 1. Requests to schedule Working Group sessions should be submitted using the "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool," a Web-based tool for submitting all of the information required by the Secretariat to schedule your sessions. The URL for the tool is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_session_requester.cgi Instructions for using the tool are available at: http://www.ietf.org/instructions/session_request_tool_instruction.html If you require an account on this tool, or assistance in using it, then please send a message to ietf-action@ietf.org. If you are unable to use the tool, then you may send your request via e-mail to agenda@ietf.org, with a copy to the appropriate Area Director(s). Requests to schedule BOF sessions must be sent to agenda@ietf.org with a copy to the appropriate Area Director(s). When submitting a Working Group or BOF session request by e-mail, please include the Working Group or BOF acronym in the Subject line. 2. BOFs will NOT be scheduled unless the Area Director(s) approved the BOF. The proponents behind a BOF need to contact a relevant Area Director, preferably well in advance of the BOF approval deadline date. The AD needs to have the full name of the BOF, its acronym, suggested names of chairs, an agenda, full description of the BOF and the information covered in item 4. Please read RFC 5434 for instructions on how to drive a successful BOF effort. The approval depends on, for instance, Internet-Drafts and list discussion on the suggested topic. BOF agenda requests, if approved, will be submitted to the IETF Secretariat by the ADs. 3. A Working Group may request either one or two sessions. If your Working Group requires more than two sessions, then your request must be approved by an Area Director. Additional sessions will be assigned, based on availability, after Monday, February 27, 2012 at 17:00 PT, the cut-off date for requests to reschedule a session. 4. You MUST provide the following information before a Working Group or BOF session will be scheduled: a. Working Group or BOF full name with acronym in brackets: b. AREA under which Working Group or BOF appears: c. CONFLICTS you wish to avoid, please be as specific as possible: d. Expected Attendance: e. Special requests: f. Number of sessions: g. Length of session: - 1 hour - 1 1/2 hours - 2 hours - 2 1/2 hours For more information on scheduling Working Group and BOF sessions, please refer to RFC 2418 (BCP 25), "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures" (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt). =============================================================== For your convenience please find here a list of the IETF Area Directors with their e-mail addresses: IETF Chair Russ Housley Applications Area (app) Pete Resnick Peter Saint-Andre Internet Area (int) Jari Arkko Ralph Droms Operations & Management Area (ops) Ronald Bonica Dan Romascanu Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area (rai) Gonzalo Camarillo Robert Sparks Routing Area (rtg) Stewart Bryant Adrian Farrel Security Area (sec) Stephen Farrell Sean Turner Transport Area (tsv) Wesley Eddy David Harrington =========================================================== Only 67 days until Paris!! From dworley@avaya.com Wed Jan 18 08:15:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E33021F86F5 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:15:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.93 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.93 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.669, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6fyqkmOcmxm6 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:15:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED1D21F855A for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:15:27 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAPzuFk/GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABEqyCBJYECgQWBcgEBAQEDEihPAgEIDQseEDIlAQEEGxqkf5toiTcMAgkJBAEOAgEBRAoJEAYBAgEBAgMBAgEBAQECgwWDOWMEiDuST4xt X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,529,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="286887201" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2012 11:15:25 -0500 Received: from dc-us1hcex1.us1.avaya.com (HELO DC-US1HCEX1.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.20]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2012 11:10:39 -0500 Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.137]) by DC-US1HCEX1.global.avaya.com ([2002:870b:3414::870b:3414]) with mapi; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:15:24 -0500 From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" To: "wgchairs@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:14:10 -0500 Subject: RE: Validating an XML schema Thread-Topic: Validating an XML schema Thread-Index: AczBr7FaJgLaXMS2QU2gQXg7Ihp0RQUTITJa Message-ID: References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:15:28 -0000 At 12:06 23-12-2011, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: >As part of the document shepherd writeup of an I-D, I am supposed >to run a proposed XML schema through an automated validator. >The problem being that I don't know of an automated validator. OK, I've been given links to a couple of validation tools, but it seems to be beyond me to figure out exactly how they want their input. Is there someone who has used one of these tools to validate a schema who is willing to tell me exactly what needs to be done? Thanks, Dale From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Jan 18 08:18:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7D621F86F5 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:18:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.711 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.112, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ezMW-cojv07T for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:18:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB8221F86DD for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:18:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from normz.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A84D540058; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:27:53 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4F16F0D4.6080404@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:18:28 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" Subject: Re: Validating an XML schema References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "wgchairs@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:18:31 -0000 On 1/18/12 9:14 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: > At 12:06 23-12-2011, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: >> As part of the document shepherd writeup of an I-D, I am supposed >> to run a proposed XML schema through an automated validator. >> The problem being that I don't know of an automated validator. > > OK, I've been given links to a couple of validation tools, Yes, there are links from here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki > but it seems > to be beyond me to figure out exactly how they want their input. > > Is there someone who has used one of these tools to validate a > schema who is willing to tell me exactly what needs to be done? I use http://www.w3.org/2001/03/webdata/xsv by creating a standalone .xsd file, uploading it to my personal website, and pointing the validator to that URL. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch Wed Jan 18 08:44:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD6C21F87CC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:44:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8ZwKf8IjUpJt for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:44:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D6A21F8769 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:44:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9233D9305; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:44:24 +0100 (MET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Yi5hI1Wnom7D; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:44:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from pb-10243.ethz.ch (pb-10243.ethz.ch [82.130.102.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B48BD9304; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:44:24 +0100 (MET) Subject: Re: Validating an XML schema Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:44:23 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1B686EB1-F722-4440-8B2C-689F83FCB58F@tik.ee.ethz.ch> References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com> To: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "wgchairs@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:44:26 -0000 Hi, Dale, I've used xmllint, which comes with libxml2 and is therefore available = on most modern Linux distributions, to validate a given bit of XML = against a given schema. Its output can be rather cryptic when the schema = is invalid -- and you do need some example XML to validate against the = schema -- but if it works, the schema is good. Cheers, Brian On Jan 18, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: > At 12:06 23-12-2011, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: >> As part of the document shepherd writeup of an I-D, I am supposed >> to run a proposed XML schema through an automated validator. >> The problem being that I don't know of an automated validator. >=20 > OK, I've been given links to a couple of validation tools, but it = seems > to be beyond me to figure out exactly how they want their input. >=20 > Is there someone who has used one of these tools to validate a > schema who is willing to tell me exactly what needs to be done? >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Dale From kathleen.moriarty@emc.com Wed Jan 18 08:50:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB70411E80BD for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:50:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.76 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.76 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.839, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4SRPcCtr6oFo for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:50:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896D311E80BC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:50:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q0IGoJ27022113 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:50:21 -0500 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.130]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:50:09 -0500 Received: from mxhub03.corp.emc.com (mxhub03.corp.emc.com [10.254.141.105]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q0IGo6ol016435; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:50:06 -0500 Received: from mx06a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.153]) by mxhub03.corp.emc.com ([10.254.141.105]) with mapi; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:50:06 -0500 From: To: Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:49:45 -0500 Subject: Re: Validating an XML schema Thread-Topic: Validating an XML schema Thread-Index: AczWATqIgx8t+ZPoSYqfn/RsHxPRVw== Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com> <4F16F0D4.6080404@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4F16F0D4.6080404@stpeter.im> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EMM-MHVC: 1 Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:50:27 -0000 If it is my schema, I used Oxygen to validate it, a colleague used the W3C = tool already mentioned. I am not sure what tool Brian Trammell used, but h= e also validated it. Oxygen is easy to use, I can walk you through that. = XMLSpy is another free tool, I have this on my system if you want instructi= ons for this tool. If you want to validate the examples to the schema, you need to link them l= ocally within the tool since the updated schema has not been posted yet by = IANA. In Oxygen, the option is in the 'Document' part of the menu. Any issues ar= e noted at the bottom of the window for the tool. I can also send the schema file as that will be the one given to IANA and w= as pasted into the most recent draft version to avoid the need to cut out h= eaders and possibly run into white space issues when you validate.=20 Thanks, Kathleen=20 Sent from my iPhone On Jan 18, 2012, at 11:19 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrot= e: > On 1/18/12 9:14 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: >> At 12:06 23-12-2011, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: >>> As part of the document shepherd writeup of an I-D, I am supposed >>> to run a proposed XML schema through an automated validator. >>> The problem being that I don't know of an automated validator. >>=20 >> OK, I've been given links to a couple of validation tools,=20 >=20 > Yes, there are links from here: >=20 > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki >=20 >> but it seems >> to be beyond me to figure out exactly how they want their input. >>=20 >> Is there someone who has used one of these tools to validate a >> schema who is willing to tell me exactly what needs to be done? >=20 > I use http://www.w3.org/2001/03/webdata/xsv by creating a standalone > .xsd file, uploading it to my personal website, and pointing the > validator to that URL. >=20 > Peter >=20 > --=20 > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ >=20 >=20 >=20 From cabo@tzi.org Wed Jan 18 08:55:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4321521F86EF for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:55:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.628 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.621, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EaxsIBh1E-uB for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:55:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283D521F85AC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:55:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0IGtg2N007202; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:55:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.117] (p5B3E6B44.dip.t-dialin.net [91.62.107.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 147A9CEB; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:55:42 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: Validating an XML schema Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:55:40 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <03F0F4B7-315F-4D86-8F4F-C48E5AD9D619@tzi.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com> <4F16F0D4.6080404@stpeter.im> To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:55:53 -0000 On Jan 18, 2012, at 17:49, wrote: > I can also send the schema file as that will be the one given to IANA = and was pasted into the most recent draft version to avoid the need to = cut out headers and possibly run into white space issues when you = validate.=20 Well, that defeats about 1/2 of the reason to validate a language = subdocument in an RFC-to-be -- did it make it into the document without = harm? I believe that including anything but completely trivial snippets of = language into an RFC-to-be without also including instructions how to = extract them in a fully automatic way is inviting failure. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From dworley@avaya.com Wed Jan 18 09:03:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D6421F876F for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:03:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.797 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.202, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_26=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cJf34r7qTdaT for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:03:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF5D21F874C for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:03:04 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EANj6Fk/GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABErEWBAoEFgXIBAQEBAxIoTwIBCA0EBAEBAR4QMh0IAQEEARIIGqUPm2SJNwwCCQkEAQ4CAQFECgkQBgECAQEFAwEBAQECgwVXFgEBAQKCR2MEiDuST4xt X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,529,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="325182075" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2012 12:02:49 -0500 Received: from dc-us1hcex2.us1.avaya.com (HELO DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.21]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2012 11:58:03 -0500 Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.137]) by DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:02:48 -0500 From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" To: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" , "wgchairs@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:02:48 -0500 Subject: RE: Validating an XML schema Thread-Topic: Validating an XML schema Thread-Index: AczBr7FaJgLaXMS2QU2gQXg7Ihp0RQUTITJaAAGEQbk= Message-ID: References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:03:05 -0000 I thank the people who have commented, but I haven't been clear: "I have an XSD file. What do I do next?" It appears that the various tools have various restrictions and rules. Naively, I assume that I can feed the XSD into the tool. But various things need to be tweaked very specifically to actually work, and none of that is documented for the naive user. For instance, I see no need for xs:import elements, as the only namespaces which my XSD refers to are integral parts of XML. But the tools seem to want xs:import elements for those things, it's not clear what their values should be, and worse, the tools seem to want to see schemas for parts of XML. Dale ________________________________________ From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wo= rley, Dale R (Dale) [dworley@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 11:14 AM To: wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: RE: Validating an XML schema At 12:06 23-12-2011, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: >As part of the document shepherd writeup of an I-D, I am supposed >to run a proposed XML schema through an automated validator. >The problem being that I don't know of an automated validator. OK, I've been given links to a couple of validation tools, but it seems to be beyond me to figure out exactly how they want their input. Is there someone who has used one of these tools to validate a schema who is willing to tell me exactly what needs to be done? Thanks, Dale From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Wed Jan 18 10:59:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E3911E8094 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:59:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MOBzCXYLSE5t for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:59:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417BD11E8074 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:59:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by yhnn12 with SMTP id n12so2151468yhn.31 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:59:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-antivirus :x-antivirus-status; bh=5dEvp7U+RF0AtvBI4wNLfI7Van6EgjTPsShqOowt438=; b=IAW2ryTDr/xB41k27QZPApIr4n4pKPBC/Q7FCFrX5lDOc7LkMeOndNnpgAdtmTGtvt i0R3S9ZabInC1n5Rw4Q4uCG4deesZJy11X3qtkajbHiovAlhqyFyDWOZa9one0w+uqOR xF6QHfeBwL++cfvBwI3PpRh6nMEzo4NHc7gmI= Received: by 10.236.193.41 with SMTP id j29mr34522424yhn.12.1326913184797; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:59:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-173-206-170-82.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.170.82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e66sm44206421yhk.6.2012.01.18.10.59.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:59:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:59:43 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120118-0, 18/01/2012), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:59:45 -0000 I recently changed my E-mail address. Thanks to the global change interface at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options// (login required per our monthly reminder E-mails), it was quick and easy to change my address for all the lists to which I am subscribed. I've also updated my address when submitting updates to the drafts I'm working on. However, the Datatracker E-mail aliases for those drafts still seem to reflect my old address, and I'm now failing to receive messages from ADs or the system relating to them. Is this a process glitch? Tom Taylor From fred@cisco.com Wed Jan 18 13:01:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C4D21F84F7; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:01:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.414 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.185, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9JpOU2rn2pDb; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:01:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD08521F84F6; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:01:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=857; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1326920474; x=1328130074; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=S5dNiyOxVrWnw73LCuLZVNX5aV5YUJNWJ3fDx7xsDJI=; b=kpjW0sM2g7OTZSa13yjaEGJ4yBikTyf++oS8DOgQQKOsN1PIr520WUlo O7iL8IYyvaTEfOpEBPfO53QcBJ+hGhYuKiqyspABhNddFf91yrqRWDRks fUJO8Z3kXcJo+35UcUCjriaMLBPILmpkYIAPJa84rFL7R8ub6+Wr8hiNE 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAMQxF0+rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABErEiBAoEFgXIBAQEDARIBJz8FCwsuARdXBjWHWAiaUgGeUokEFxUHBwQJBQEFCQkCAgEBDQUEEQUBBgEBBgEFFxUBAgEBAgMDAQEBAQIHEAUOJgxEEAULgUV8AYI8YwSIO4xZhVWNFA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,531,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="24346902" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2012 21:01:14 +0000 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-220.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-220.cisco.com [10.32.244.220]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0IL1DYB017394; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:01:14 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-220.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:01:13 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-220.cisco.com on Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:01:13 -0800 Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Fred Baker In-Reply-To: <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:00:44 -0800 Message-Id: <5215525E-029B-4833-8366-5FDFB85AEFCF@cisco.com> References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> To: Tom Taylor X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Working Group Chairs , Tools Team Discussion X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:01:15 -0000 On Jan 18, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Tom Taylor wrote: > I recently changed my E-mail address. Thanks to the global change = interface at >=20 > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options// >=20 > (login required per our monthly reminder E-mails), it was quick and = easy to change my address for all the lists to which I am subscribed. = I've also updated my address when submitting updates to the drafts I'm = working on. However, the Datatracker E-mail aliases for those drafts = still seem to reflect my old address, and I'm now failing to receive = messages from ADs or the system relating to them. >=20 > Is this a process glitch? >=20 > Tom Taylor Copying tools-discuss@. The datatracker.ietf.org and tools.ietf.org are = different systems with different databases. Sounds like an API glitch = between them.= From loa@pi.nu Wed Jan 18 13:55:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167FD11E80B0 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:55:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rHjeKibgUlbK for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:55:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pi.nu (mail.pi.nu [194.71.127.148]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02E911E809C for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:55:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.64] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by mail.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 226F92A8003 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:55:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:55:43 +0100 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:55:58 -0000 Tom, All, the data tracker aliases reflects what is the drafts. I've seen this discussion before and after thinking a bit I believe it as it should be. The easiest way to change what is in the data tracker aliases is to update the draft. My take is that some that sends to a data tracker alias should have a chance to know where goes, it might be a difference to send to john.doe@companyA.com as compared to have the mail show up at john.doe@companyB.com. /Loa On 2012-01-18 19:59, Tom Taylor wrote: > I recently changed my E-mail address. Thanks to the global change > interface at > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options// > > (login required per our monthly reminder E-mails), it was quick and easy > to change my address for all the lists to which I am subscribed. I've > also updated my address when submitting updates to the drafts I'm > working on. However, the Datatracker E-mail aliases for those drafts > still seem to reflect my old address, and I'm now failing to receive > messages from ADs or the system relating to them. > > Is this a process glitch? > > Tom Taylor -- Loa Andersson email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa@pi.nu Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13 +46 767 72 92 13 From david.black@emc.com Wed Jan 18 14:01:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756D521F85E9 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:01:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.746 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.746 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.853, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iThVcMWpAY4D for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:01:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE9D11E807F for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:01:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q0IM1ajg020549 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:01:36 -0500 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.253]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:01:21 -0500 Received: from mxhub26.corp.emc.com (mxhub26.corp.emc.com [10.254.110.182]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q0IM1LCV005499 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:01:21 -0500 Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.99]) by mxhub26.corp.emc.com ([10.254.110.182]) with mapi; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:01:20 -0500 From: To: Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:01:13 -0500 Subject: RE: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases Thread-Topic: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases Thread-Index: AczWLABMxm3e7zRNTQKkBAt8qaAJ4QAAFZTQ Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7CF0CDE@MX14A.corp.emc.com> References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EMM-MHVC: 1 X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:01:38 -0000 The email addresses in the drafts really should be correct for Authors 48 h= ours review. As a GenART reviewer, I always copy the author email addresses from the dra= ft instead of using a tools alias, and have occasionally caught out-of-date email addr= esses. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Loa Andersson > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:56 PM > To: wgchairs@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases >=20 > Tom, All, >=20 > the data tracker aliases reflects what is the drafts. I've seen this > discussion before and after thinking a bit I believe it as it should be. > The easiest way to change what is in the data tracker aliases is to > update the draft. >=20 > My take is that some that sends to a data tracker alias should have > a chance to know where goes, it might be a difference to send to > john.doe@companyA.com as compared to have the mail show up at > john.doe@companyB.com. >=20 > /Loa >=20 >=20 > On 2012-01-18 19:59, Tom Taylor wrote: > > I recently changed my E-mail address. Thanks to the global change > > interface at > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options// > > > > (login required per our monthly reminder E-mails), it was quick and eas= y > > to change my address for all the lists to which I am subscribed. I've > > also updated my address when submitting updates to the drafts I'm > > working on. However, the Datatracker E-mail aliases for those drafts > > still seem to reflect my old address, and I'm now failing to receive > > messages from ADs or the system relating to them. > > > > Is this a process glitch? > > > > Tom Taylor >=20 > -- >=20 >=20 > Loa Andersson email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa@pi.nu > Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13 > +46 767 72 92 13 From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Jan 18 14:05:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842DA11E809C for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:05:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VolNc2i0lT71 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:05:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C293811E807F for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:05:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0IM5Drj018460; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:05:13 GMT Received: from 950129200 ([195.43.57.40]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0IM5CL7018448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:05:13 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Loa Andersson'" , References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> Subject: RE: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:05:12 -0000 Message-ID: <00b401ccd62d$4118d2c0$c34a7840$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKmpWh0MoZ+Al4ty0dKDWv4+35ssAIEIKpkAqBIURgBQSWTUAM7nwbIAqLlVyyUAO7+IA== Content-Language: en-gb X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:05:15 -0000 If you want to know where aliases point to at any moment in time... http://tools.ietf.org/ad/aliases A > -----Original Message----- > From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Loa Andersson > Sent: 18 January 2012 21:56 > To: wgchairs@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases > > Tom, All, > > the data tracker aliases reflects what is the drafts. I've seen this > discussion before and after thinking a bit I believe it as it should be. > The easiest way to change what is in the data tracker aliases is to > update the draft. > > My take is that some that sends to a data tracker alias should have > a chance to know where goes, it might be a difference to send to > john.doe@companyA.com as compared to have the mail show up at > john.doe@companyB.com. > > /Loa > > > On 2012-01-18 19:59, Tom Taylor wrote: > > I recently changed my E-mail address. Thanks to the global change > > interface at > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options// > > > > (login required per our monthly reminder E-mails), it was quick and easy > > to change my address for all the lists to which I am subscribed. I've > > also updated my address when submitting updates to the drafts I'm > > working on. However, the Datatracker E-mail aliases for those drafts > > still seem to reflect my old address, and I'm now failing to receive > > messages from ADs or the system relating to them. > > > > Is this a process glitch? > > > > Tom Taylor > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa@pi.nu > Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13 > +46 767 72 92 13 From jmpolk@cisco.com Wed Jan 18 16:06:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40AB721F84A6 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:06:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UzBxU8m1cFhc for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:06:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D8221F84AA for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:06:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; l=1739; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1326931601; x=1328141201; h=message-id:date:to:from:subject:mime-version; bh=KA6ncMKFDc7DGDP/O85He5ojCZD9jn4ZrYn9/13/i90=; b=bAJ0+CXfeNCEb++JlGbuNQsNh8Q7TDaOPKwrSSw4UOV+dD503lta4LEg cwkrLan+BisiW3RsYcRjezswRu2p33b6VkQhwg87h5GG4nj6hWWdGln00 lGBCAt2mfO7iZayFEkFG5glL+uBURs/DHbSHX4+pbkrEXcQM+7GDXdZzE E=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,532,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="24375716" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2012 00:06:41 +0000 Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8711.cisco.com [10.99.80.18]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0J06el5026708; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:06:41 GMT Message-Id: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:06:39 -0600 To: wgchairs@ietf.org From: "James M. Polk" Subject: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:06:42 -0000 Chairs I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little unusual in several ways (at least it is for me): - it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to - increase the strength of the document (see bullet below), and - assign more values within the doc that need new text to cover (25-40% more) - I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status as informational to either standards track or BCP. - I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc and have significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing text from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this change % to remain or increase. - 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a while (that I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or acquired)). This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view since the community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page vs. an authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section. Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be in a contributors section since this new version of the doc is based on work previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original text left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and add my name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous RFC's authors/editors listed in a contributor's section). Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or opinions how I should handle this? James From turners@ieca.com Wed Jan 18 16:21:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F8511E80D9 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:21:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.289 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XPYo14V9z7pp for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:21:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from gateway06.websitewelcome.com (gateway06.websitewelcome.com [69.93.35.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 626E011E80D7 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:21:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway06.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id 3763E8DE27A45; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:21:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from gator1743.hostgator.com (gator1743.hostgator.com [184.173.253.227]) by gateway06.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BCB68DE27A20 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:21:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from [71.191.7.32] (port=38308 helo=thunderfish.local) by gator1743.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rnfl1-0003KI-J6; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:21:35 -0600 Message-ID: <4F17620F.6010808@ieca.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:21:35 -0500 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "James M. Polk" Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator1743.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ieca.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: pool-71-191-7-32.washdc.east.verizon.net (thunderfish.local) [71.191.7.32]:38308 X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com X-Email-Count: 1 X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IxNzQzLmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:21:41 -0000 James, On additional thing to consider is the # of the RFC. If it's before 5378, then you're going to need to get all the authors to grant permission or you will be required to include the pre-5378 boiler plate. When I updated S/MIME I had to track down the 15 or so previous authors of v2, v3, and v3.1 to avoid adding the boiler plate text. I got in touch with 14 of the 15 and in the end included the text. spt On 1/18/12 7:06 PM, James M. Polk wrote: > Chairs > > I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on > authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little unusual > in several ways (at least it is for me): > > - it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to > > - increase the strength of the document (see bullet below), > and > > - assign more values within the doc that need new text to > cover (25-40% more) > > - I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status as > informational to either standards track or BCP. > > - I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc and have > significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing text > from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this change % > to remain or increase. > > - 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a while (that > I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or acquired)). > > This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view since the > community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and > overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page vs. an > authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section. > > Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be in a > contributors section since this new version of the doc is based on work > previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original text > left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and add my > name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous RFC's > authors/editors listed in a contributor's section). > > Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or opinions how > I should handle this? > > James > > From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Wed Jan 18 17:03:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9E011E80E0 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:03:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Fvaew2A0rnW for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:03:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2215611E80E6 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:03:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by ggnr5 with SMTP id r5so4943185ggn.31 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:03:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=ZtuSbVjVum1Aa1imV3enYmVtLt70N4xLd0JCqyAI1zc=; b=sRr/MYtG7EA2G5os2LFrloVbiaVCiIQoUV2pUQh17eaCjdY9usKOPc04qbUqloU9Dd qcNPbEumFJN4FGjywpu4PTxPiI/QnTvey+gBSJgVKn+6x/ku7VweM9ljfs8vrsuiB3EW FIFAHaw9ZTOpsZZX5ZTo5BdtHQdJytpb33dsQ= Received: by 10.101.53.19 with SMTP id f19mr10761828ank.76.1326934987721; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:03:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-173-206-170-82.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.170.82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q5sm45922442yhm.7.2012.01.18.17.03.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:03:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F176BC7.1020703@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:03:03 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Loa Andersson Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120118-1, 18/01/2012), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:03:33 -0000 The thing is, I did update the drafts (as I mentioned below). The E-mails are still going to the wrong address, I think. (I ran an experiment with one of them and got nothing back.) On 18/01/2012 4:55 PM, Loa Andersson wrote: > Tom, All, > > the data tracker aliases reflects what is the drafts. I've seen this > discussion before and after thinking a bit I believe it as it should be. > The easiest way to change what is in the data tracker aliases is to > update the draft. > > My take is that some that sends to a data tracker alias should have > a chance to know where goes, it might be a difference to send to > john.doe@companyA.com as compared to have the mail show up at > john.doe@companyB.com. > > /Loa > > > On 2012-01-18 19:59, Tom Taylor wrote: >> I recently changed my E-mail address. Thanks to the global change >> interface at >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options// >> >> (login required per our monthly reminder E-mails), it was quick and easy >> to change my address for all the lists to which I am subscribed. I've >> also updated my address when submitting updates to the drafts I'm >> working on. However, the Datatracker E-mail aliases for those drafts >> still seem to reflect my old address, and I'm now failing to receive >> messages from ADs or the system relating to them. >> >> Is this a process glitch? >> >> Tom Taylor > From touch@isi.edu Wed Jan 18 17:20:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3DD11E80DA for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:20:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.509, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2IIjGdVRLQWA for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:20:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF2D911E80C1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:20:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.9.160.252] (pen.isi.edu [128.9.160.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0J1KZXh002942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:20:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F176FE3.4060202@isi.edu> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:20:35 -0800 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "James M. Polk" Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:20:49 -0000 Hi, James, If you're writing 90%, why not simply write 100% and be the sole author, citing this work where needed? If you don't, then IMO you *must* include the other authors. You can reorder - i.e., putting yourself first - but unless a specific author says "you omitted everything I contributed to the original RFC", I don't consider it correct (from a plagiarism and/or copyright issue) to omit them as named authors of this document. As to the boilerplate, I don't see that as relevant; it doesn't relieve you from avoiding claims of plagiarism if you use text verbatim that isn't clearly delineated as not your own (indented or quoted and clearly marked and cited in either case). That's my view, given the context that I deal with copyright and plagiarism issues in both the ACM and IEEE in some detail... Joe On 1/18/2012 4:06 PM, James M. Polk wrote: > Chairs > > I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on > authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little unusual > in several ways (at least it is for me): > > - it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to > > - increase the strength of the document (see bullet below), > and > > - assign more values within the doc that need new text to > cover (25-40% more) > > - I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status as > informational to either standards track or BCP. > > - I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc and have > significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing text > from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this change % > to remain or increase. > > - 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a while (that > I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or acquired)). > > This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view since the > community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and > overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page vs. an > authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section. > > Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be in a > contributors section since this new version of the doc is based on work > previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original text > left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and add my > name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous RFC's > authors/editors listed in a contributor's section). > > Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or opinions how > I should handle this? > > James From jmpolk@cisco.com Wed Jan 18 19:53:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE44611E8107 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:53:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EUbQWa2lmc7w for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3107511E80FF for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:53:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; l=2415; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1326945180; x=1328154780; h=message-id:date:to:from:subject:cc:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=UjTvou1ok8IJjZXdf2Bt21+yBxovzHr388CMMDMWLYw=; b=D8jzHlD+pGkzvXePYi0UlMGHuJRpKl4vDoeHs5PV81AO1fioMWGeF90h HLeIziqnfFjC5KFm4d5Abnx2wi4FW5l2IZyE2CV9oT+yCsRaMSe5Q8Ivo na/x0oUZcQmhJ5a+l4hpB8SL7Q9EH1OGdQJmmPsbHhm2jXrzzwL7s1xM0 Y=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,533,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="24400333" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2012 03:53:00 +0000 Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8711.cisco.com [10.99.80.18]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0J3qxZU028844; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:52:59 GMT Message-Id: <201201190352.q0J3qxZU028844@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:52:58 -0600 To: Sean Turner , "James M. Polk" From: "James M. Polk" Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures In-Reply-To: <4F17620F.6010808@ieca.com> References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17620F.6010808@ieca.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:53:00 -0000 Thanks Sean BTW - did you find that adding the text was a hindrance as a practical matter? At 06:21 PM 1/18/2012, Sean Turner wrote: >James, > >On additional thing to consider is the # of the RFC. If it's before >5378, then you're going to need to get all the authors to grant >permission or you will be required to include the pre-5378 boiler >plate. When I updated S/MIME I had to track down the 15 or so >previous authors of v2, v3, and v3.1 to avoid adding the boiler >plate text. I got in touch with 14 of the 15 and in the end included the text. > >spt > >On 1/18/12 7:06 PM, James M. Polk wrote: >>Chairs >> >>I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on >>authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little unusual >>in several ways (at least it is for me): >> >>- it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to >> >>- increase the strength of the document (see bullet below), >>and >> >>- assign more values within the doc that need new text to >>cover (25-40% more) >> >>- I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status as >>informational to either standards track or BCP. >> >>- I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc and have >>significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing text >>from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this change % >>to remain or increase. >> >>- 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a while (that >>I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or acquired)). >> >>This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view since the >>community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and >>overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page vs. an >>authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section. >> >>Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be in a >>contributors section since this new version of the doc is based on work >>previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original text >>left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and add my >>name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous RFC's >>authors/editors listed in a contributor's section). >> >>Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or opinions how >>I should handle this? >> >>James >> From rcallon@juniper.net Wed Jan 18 19:56:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD95711E80FF for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:56:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EbXquFXRmD3m for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:56:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og125.obsmtp.com (exprod7og125.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0168C11E8109 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:56:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob125.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTxeUcQdHMlMzosESgF5DnknB7e61du4W@postini.com; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:56:51 PST Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:56:31 -0800 Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe01-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:56:31 -0800 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:56:30 -0500 From: Ross Callon To: Tom Taylor , Loa Andersson Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:56:28 -0500 Subject: RE: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases Thread-Topic: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases Thread-Index: AczWRi4ahno98pH3RRKEzAK9vohMZgAFr94w Message-ID: References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> <4F176BC7.1020703@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F176BC7.1020703@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "wgchairs@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:56:51 -0000 I have never trusted the Internet-Draft-specific email address for the simp= le reason that I can't know for sure who it is really going to. I therefore= tend to copy the email addresses from the I.D. when sending email that nee= ds to go to the authors. =20 Ross -----Original Message----- From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f Of Tom Taylor Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 8:03 PM To: Loa Andersson Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases The thing is, I did update the drafts (as I mentioned below). The=20 E-mails are still going to the wrong address, I think. (I ran an=20 experiment with one of them and got nothing back.) On 18/01/2012 4:55 PM, Loa Andersson wrote: > Tom, All, > > the data tracker aliases reflects what is the drafts. I've seen this > discussion before and after thinking a bit I believe it as it should be. > The easiest way to change what is in the data tracker aliases is to > update the draft. > > My take is that some that sends to a data tracker alias should have > a chance to know where goes, it might be a difference to send to > john.doe@companyA.com as compared to have the mail show up at > john.doe@companyB.com. > > /Loa > > > On 2012-01-18 19:59, Tom Taylor wrote: >> I recently changed my E-mail address. Thanks to the global change >> interface at >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options// >> >> (login required per our monthly reminder E-mails), it was quick and easy >> to change my address for all the lists to which I am subscribed. I've >> also updated my address when submitting updates to the drafts I'm >> working on. However, the Datatracker E-mail aliases for those drafts >> still seem to reflect my old address, and I'm now failing to receive >> messages from ADs or the system relating to them. >> >> Is this a process glitch? >> >> Tom Taylor > From jmpolk@cisco.com Wed Jan 18 19:59:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E49E11E810B for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:59:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kgL-jFBqOGe1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:59:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D308011E80FF for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:59:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; l=3343; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1326945578; x=1328155178; h=message-id:date:to:from:subject:cc:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=onkPeJFcbTowE0ZlrglzGarpfkqFS6EC+YEfb2pkUNY=; b=N9dY32OZEuHwaVTANgAJ4gjoWec0KEvOwKuX9UrYHs4JDvsZ+93/3NbQ jdje9Gu8NkK9gLBFMJTcWLvL94WtFMEKFckfCZ/GXws2jr7/eXG458utR eZHFOS3EfbG8Fn8iE10Qg4H783NF3q9pIQxvLdGq1E6ISYXECI7LvuxTC k=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,533,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="24400936" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2012 03:59:37 +0000 Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8711.cisco.com [10.99.80.18]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0J3xb9R021708; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:59:37 GMT Message-Id: <201201190359.q0J3xb9R021708@mtv-core-3.cisco.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:59:36 -0600 To: Joe Touch , "James M. Polk" From: "James M. Polk" Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures In-Reply-To: <4F176FE3.4060202@isi.edu> References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F176FE3.4060202@isi.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:59:40 -0000 You get to the heart of my confusion - if I leave some sentences in from the original RFC, is it appropriate or expected IETF practice to include their names on the first page, or move them into an elevated "Author Contributions" section (which is far greater acknowledgement than the Acknowledgements section IMO). I would never not include text contributors, as that's bad practice (at least) and a slimy thing to do (again IMO). As to why not a 100% rewrite - there's some math that's valuable to keep, plus periodic sentences that are too concise to paraphrase or redo. James At 07:20 PM 1/18/2012, Joe Touch wrote: >Hi, James, > >If you're writing 90%, why not simply write 100% and be the sole >author, citing this work where needed? > >If you don't, then IMO you *must* include the other authors. You can >reorder - i.e., putting yourself first - but unless a specific >author says "you omitted everything I contributed to the original >RFC", I don't consider it correct (from a plagiarism and/or >copyright issue) to omit them as named authors of this document. > >As to the boilerplate, I don't see that as relevant; it doesn't >relieve you from avoiding claims of plagiarism if you use text >verbatim that isn't clearly delineated as not your own (indented or >quoted and clearly marked and cited in either case). > >That's my view, given the context that I deal with copyright and >plagiarism issues in both the ACM and IEEE in some detail... > >Joe > >On 1/18/2012 4:06 PM, James M. Polk wrote: >>Chairs >> >>I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on >>authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little unusual >>in several ways (at least it is for me): >> >>- it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to >> >>- increase the strength of the document (see bullet below), >>and >> >>- assign more values within the doc that need new text to >>cover (25-40% more) >> >>- I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status as >>informational to either standards track or BCP. >> >>- I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc and have >>significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing text >>from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this change % >>to remain or increase. >> >>- 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a while (that >>I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or acquired)). >> >>This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view since the >>community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and >>overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page vs. an >>authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section. >> >>Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be in a >>contributors section since this new version of the doc is based on work >>previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original text >>left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and add my >>name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous RFC's >>authors/editors listed in a contributor's section). >> >>Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or opinions how >>I should handle this? >> >>James From randy_presuhn@mindspring.com Wed Jan 18 21:44:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02AF511E80D8 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:44:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r8fJp4ex1r9g for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:44:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9117711E808C for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:44:08 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=UBWUEFgfEDidrVTMwtqeF8tN1OiBO7j1ScHe7W7Ax9sGCJWKQ19Z66qEZEbkOw5t; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [99.35.227.143] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Rnkn6-0008Ns-TW for wgchairs@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:44:05 -0500 Message-ID: <001501ccd66d$dbf13860$6b01a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F176FE3.4060202@isi.edu> Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:47:40 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d88874e73e997ea5cd0f24b6796175076f5b761c281c10bef7fc350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 99.35.227.143 X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:44:11 -0000 Hi - > From: "Joe Touch" > To: "James M. Polk" > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:20 PM > Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures ... > If you don't, then IMO you *must* include the other authors. You can > reorder - i.e., putting yourself first - but unless a specific author > says "you omitted everything I contributed to the original RFC", I don't > consider it correct (from a plagiarism and/or copyright issue) to omit > them as named authors of this document. If any of the original authors is no longer reachable and responsive, this would be asking for trouble in AUTH48. Of course their contribution in the form of the predecessor document should be ackowledged, but listing them as authors of the new document for purposes of document processing and aknowledging the IPR rules du jour - for a version in which they have no active involvement - doesn't make sense to me. Randy From jmh@joelhalpern.com Wed Jan 18 21:58:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5834721F8692 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:58:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uboxkwwD9cD4 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:58:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23D621F8691 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:58:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailb1.tigertech.net (mailb1.tigertech.net [208.80.4.153]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C57CB1FC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:58:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71454D4069A; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:58:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailb1.tigertech.net Received: from [172.17.114.244] (207.47.24.2.static.nextweb.net [207.47.24.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CB1FD40531; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:58:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F17B120.5060800@joelhalpern.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:58:56 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Presuhn Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F176FE3.4060202@isi.edu> <001501ccd66d$dbf13860$6b01a8c0@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <001501ccd66d$dbf13860$6b01a8c0@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:58:59 -0000 Just to clarify, even if it is necessary to use the IPR declaration for something with older material, it is still not necessary to list the old authors on the front page. They need to be properly credited, for example with text that says "This document is a revision of, and largely based upon, RFC XYZQ written by A and B." In the appropriate section. Yours, Joel On 1/19/2012 12:47 AM, Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - > >> From: "Joe Touch" >> To: "James M. Polk" >> Cc: >> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:20 PM >> Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures > ... >> If you don't, then IMO you *must* include the other authors. You can >> reorder - i.e., putting yourself first - but unless a specific author >> says "you omitted everything I contributed to the original RFC", I don't >> consider it correct (from a plagiarism and/or copyright issue) to omit >> them as named authors of this document. > > If any of the original authors is no longer reachable and responsive, > this would be asking for trouble in AUTH48. Of course their contribution > in the form of the predecessor document should be ackowledged, > but listing them as authors of the new document for purposes of > document processing and aknowledging the IPR rules du jour - for > a version in which they have no active involvement - doesn't make > sense to me. > > Randy > > From marcelo@it.uc3m.es Wed Jan 18 22:48:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B708D11E8088 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:48:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1U7V45iGMu9u for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:48:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A2DB11E8072 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:48:25 -0800 (PST) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro.local (152.31.18.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.18.31.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3550A9C62C6 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:48:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F17BCB7.6060203@it.uc3m.es> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:48:23 +0100 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F176FE3.4060202@isi.edu> <001501ccd66d$dbf13860$6b01a8c0@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <001501ccd66d$dbf13860$6b01a8c0@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18654.003 X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:48:26 -0000 Hi, I personally agree 100% with Joe. I also understand the practical considerations Randy mentions, but I guess the easy way to deal with this is send them an email and ask them. If they reply, then you can expect them to be responsive in AUTH48 as well. If they don't, i guess you have no choice than to move them out of the authors. Regards, marcelo El 19/01/12 06:47, Randy Presuhn escribi�: > Hi - > >> From: "Joe Touch" >> To: "James M. Polk" >> Cc: >> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:20 PM >> Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures > ... >> If you don't, then IMO you *must* include the other authors. You can >> reorder - i.e., putting yourself first - but unless a specific author >> says "you omitted everything I contributed to the original RFC", I don't >> consider it correct (from a plagiarism and/or copyright issue) to omit >> them as named authors of this document. > If any of the original authors is no longer reachable and responsive, > this would be asking for trouble in AUTH48. Of course their contribution > in the form of the predecessor document should be ackowledged, > but listing them as authors of the new document for purposes of > document processing and aknowledging the IPR rules du jour - for > a version in which they have no active involvement - doesn't make > sense to me. > > Randy > > From touch@isi.edu Thu Jan 19 00:47:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7075021F856F for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:47:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C3UvDAU1285u for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:47:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA89421F8568 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:47:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.87] (pool-71-105-89-105.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.105.89.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0J8krIV019758 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:46:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Joe Touch X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001501ccd66d$dbf13860$6b01a8c0@oemcomputer> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:47:01 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2EFDA458-F486-4D7F-A11B-419AFF77BEDA@isi.edu> References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F176FE3.4060202@isi.edu> <001501ccd66d$dbf13860$6b01a8c0@oemcomputer> To: "Randy Presuhn" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:47:16 -0000 On Jan 18, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - >=20 >> From: "Joe Touch" >> To: "James M. Polk" >> Cc: >> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:20 PM >> Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures > ... >> If you don't, then IMO you *must* include the other authors. You can=20= >> reorder - i.e., putting yourself first - but unless a specific author=20= >> says "you omitted everything I contributed to the original RFC", I = don't=20 >> consider it correct (from a plagiarism and/or copyright issue) to = omit=20 >> them as named authors of this document. >=20 > If any of the original authors is no longer reachable and responsive, > this would be asking for trouble in AUTH48. Of course their = contribution > in the form of the predecessor document should be ackowledged, > but listing them as authors of the new document for purposes of > document processing and aknowledging the IPR rules du jour - for > a version in which they have no active involvement - doesn't make > sense to me. I understand what you *want*. However, if you don't quote or indent the text, AND you leave these = folks off the author list ("author contributors" isn't relevant, = AFAICT), then you expose yourself to plagiarism charges. In such cases, there's a notion of the "corresponding" author that = should be empowered to deal with AUTH48 issues (if that's not the case, = the error is in RFC process; this doesn't warrant ignoring plagiarism = issues). Joe From touch@isi.edu Thu Jan 19 00:48:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CEE421F856D for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:48:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cGMZD1f4YNUL for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:48:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B7D421F8568 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:48:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.87] (pool-71-105-89-105.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.105.89.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0J8mFbU014046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:48:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Joe Touch In-Reply-To: <4F17B120.5060800@joelhalpern.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:48:24 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F176FE3.4060202@isi.edu> <001501ccd66d$dbf13860$6b01a8c0@oemcomputer> <4F17B120.5060800@joelhalpern.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:48:59 -0000 FWIW, this may fly by RFC rules, but doesn't by plagiarism policies at = most institutions - e.g., where the offending author might work. Joe On Jan 18, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Just to clarify, even if it is necessary to use the IPR declaration = for something with older material, it is still not necessary to list the = old authors on the front page. They need to be properly credited, for = example with text that says "This document is a revision of, and largely = based upon, RFC XYZQ written by A and B." In the appropriate section. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 1/19/2012 12:47 AM, Randy Presuhn wrote: >> Hi - >>=20 >>> From: "Joe Touch" >>> To: "James M. Polk" >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:20 PM >>> Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures >> ... >>> If you don't, then IMO you *must* include the other authors. You can >>> reorder - i.e., putting yourself first - but unless a specific = author >>> says "you omitted everything I contributed to the original RFC", I = don't >>> consider it correct (from a plagiarism and/or copyright issue) to = omit >>> them as named authors of this document. >>=20 >> If any of the original authors is no longer reachable and responsive, >> this would be asking for trouble in AUTH48. Of course their = contribution >> in the form of the predecessor document should be ackowledged, >> but listing them as authors of the new document for purposes of >> document processing and aknowledging the IPR rules du jour - for >> a version in which they have no active involvement - doesn't make >> sense to me. >>=20 >> Randy >>=20 >>=20 From d3e3e3@gmail.com Thu Jan 19 01:33:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE7D21F85B4 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:33:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.388 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.789, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5-9KFHKLfj9Q for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:33:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4FB21F85AE for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:33:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by lagj5 with SMTP id j5so237959lag.31 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:33:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oLLRovZMbh5nib588/qvCq8JBZBURwQ9UM4de2FPhkk=; b=Xd8L5F9zXZEQsHpy5mUUnvmgj5M5ogjlTvuqC7+zkQat7kjoh+o48/YpU8RSu3yiZu DnalXgqbSKkYx0NerRGuSCS9+uSZHqjxjo7V3Q8nE+HZ1plcYNVcFxdj1GuNOWpOTdvI wi//HhgibCB6BEPE8puBRlaI924GBIG7GMSXc= Received: by 10.112.48.193 with SMTP id o1mr6326038lbn.1.1326965607319; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:33:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.100.131 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:33:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F176FE3.4060202@isi.edu> <001501ccd66d$dbf13860$6b01a8c0@oemcomputer> <4F17B120.5060800@joelhalpern.com> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:33:06 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures To: Working Group Chairs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:33:29 -0000 I believe people contributing to IETF standards track documents, by doing so, permit any use of their contribution in future IETF standards efforts. Of course, anyone whose authorship is represented in the document must be acknowledged, unless they ask not to be. Being listed on the first page, however, is absolutely not a right. As a WG chair, for example, you SHOULD remove from the first page anyone who is failing to update a WG draft to correspond to the WG consensus and appoint someone else who will do so. As above, of course, any such removed author must be acknowledged appropriately in the document, unless they ask not to be. Thanks, Donald =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D =A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd=A0=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell) =A0155 Beaver Street,=A0Milford, MA 01757 USA =A0d3e3e3@gmail.com On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > FWIW, this may fly by RFC rules, but doesn't by plagiarism policies at mo= st institutions - e.g., where the offending author might work. > > Joe > > On Jan 18, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > >> Just to clarify, even if it is necessary to use the IPR declaration for = something with older material, it is still not necessary to list the old au= thors on the front page. =A0They need to be properly credited, for example = with text that says "This document is a revision of, and largely based upon= , RFC XYZQ written by A and B." In the appropriate section. >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 1/19/2012 12:47 AM, Randy Presuhn wrote: >>> Hi - >>> >>>> From: "Joe Touch" >>>> To: "James M. Polk" >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:20 PM >>>> Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures >>> ... >>>> If you don't, then IMO you *must* include the other authors. You can >>>> reorder - i.e., putting yourself first - but unless a specific author >>>> says "you omitted everything I contributed to the original RFC", I don= 't >>>> consider it correct (from a plagiarism and/or copyright issue) to omit >>>> them as named authors of this document. >>> >>> If any of the original authors is no longer reachable and responsive, >>> this would be asking for trouble in AUTH48. =A0Of course their contribu= tion >>> in the form of the predecessor document should be ackowledged, >>> but listing them as authors of the new document for purposes of >>> document processing and aknowledging the IPR rules du jour - for >>> a version in which they have no active involvement - doesn't make >>> sense to me. >>> >>> Randy >>> >>> > From bclaise@cisco.com Thu Jan 19 01:38:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C16321F85ED for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:38:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.268 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.330, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6iqQInRBJ2Fw for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F8021F85E5 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:38:23 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0J9cMQV011205 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:38:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.60.67.88] (ams-bclaise-8917.cisco.com [10.60.67.88]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0J9cL42012909; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:38:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:38:14 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "James M. Polk" Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030900060208080609090201" Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:38:30 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030900060208080609090201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi James, I asked the exact same question to my AD (Dan Romascanu) while working on the RFC5101bis and RFC5102bis. I shared his answer verbatim to the IPFIX mailing Knowing that the authors list is sometimes a sensitive topic, I've been seeking for advice and guidelines when publishing draft standards and I received the following answer: The most used current practice is to list on the first page only the editors of the latest version and to start the Acknowledgments section by mentioning the full list of the authors of the previous RFC and mention that this work is based upon and develops the original RFC. At least, everybody is warned in advance (or at least while working on the doc.): "you are more than welcome to participate, otherwise your name will be moved to the ACK section." Regards, Benoit . > Chairs > > I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on > authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little unusual > in several ways (at least it is for me): > > - it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to > > - increase the strength of the document (see bullet below), > and > > - assign more values within the doc that need new text to > cover (25-40% more) > > - I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status as > informational to either standards track or BCP. > > - I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc and > have significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing > text from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this > change % to remain or increase. > > - 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a while > (that I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or > acquired)). > > This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view since > the community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, > and overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page > vs. an authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section. > > Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be in a > contributors section since this new version of the doc is based on > work previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original > text left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and > add my name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous > RFC's authors/editors listed in a contributor's section). > > Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or opinions > how I should handle this? > > James > > --------------030900060208080609090201 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi James,

I asked the exact same question to my AD (Dan Romascanu) while working on the RFC5101bis and RFC5102bis. I shared his answer verbatim to the IPFIX mailing

Knowing that the authors list is sometimes a sensitive topic, I've been seeking for advice and guidelines when publishing draft standards and I received the following answer:

The most used current practice is to list on the first page only the editors of the latest version and to start the Acknowledgments section by mentioning the full list of the authors of the previous RFC and mention that this work is based upon and develops the original RFC.

At least, everybody is warned in advance (or at least while working on the doc.): "you are more than welcome to participate, otherwise your name will be moved to the ACK section."

Regards, Benoit
.

Chairs

I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little unusual in several ways (at least it is for me):

- it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to

    - increase the strength of the document (see bullet below),
      and

    - assign more values within the doc that need new text to
      cover (25-40% more)

- I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status as informational to either standards track or BCP.

- I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc and have significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing text from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this change % to remain or increase.

- 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a while (that I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or acquired)).

This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view since the community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page vs. an authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section.

Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be in a contributors section since this new version of the doc is based on work previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original text left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and add my name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous RFC's authors/editors listed in a contributor's section).

Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or opinions how I should handle this?

James

--------------030900060208080609090201-- From turners@ieca.com Thu Jan 19 05:47:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 045BF21F85FF for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:47:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.268 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sRkzHqIk3EBG for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:47:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from gateway02.websitewelcome.com (gateway02.websitewelcome.com [69.56.236.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7B521F860B for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:47:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway02.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id E23743EE06FF6; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:47:31 -0600 (CST) Received: from gator1743.hostgator.com (gator1743.hostgator.com [184.173.253.227]) by gateway02.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D69DC3EE06FD6 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:47:31 -0600 (CST) Received: from [96.231.123.58] (port=37345 helo=thunderfish.local) by gator1743.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RnsKw-0002Eq-Qu; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:47:31 -0600 Message-ID: <4F181EF3.9000607@ieca.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:47:31 -0500 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "James M. Polk" Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17620F.6010808@ieca.com> <201201190352.q0J3qxZU028844@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <201201190352.q0J3qxZU028844@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator1743.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ieca.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: pool-96-231-123-58.washdc.east.verizon.net (thunderfish.local) [96.231.123.58]:37345 X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com X-Email-Count: 1 X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IxNzQzLmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:47:34 -0000 No hindrance at all. It turns out the one author I couldn't find worked for the US Gov't and I could have left the boiler plate off because US Govies can't retain copyright ;) You live you learn. spt On 1/18/12 10:52 PM, James M. Polk wrote: > Thanks Sean > > BTW - did you find that adding the text was a hindrance as a practical > matter? > > At 06:21 PM 1/18/2012, Sean Turner wrote: >> James, >> >> On additional thing to consider is the # of the RFC. If it's before >> 5378, then you're going to need to get all the authors to grant >> permission or you will be required to include the pre-5378 boiler >> plate. When I updated S/MIME I had to track down the 15 or so previous >> authors of v2, v3, and v3.1 to avoid adding the boiler plate text. I >> got in touch with 14 of the 15 and in the end included the text. >> >> spt >> >> On 1/18/12 7:06 PM, James M. Polk wrote: >>> Chairs >>> >>> I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on >>> authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little unusual >>> in several ways (at least it is for me): >>> >>> - it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to >>> >>> - increase the strength of the document (see bullet below), >>> and >>> >>> - assign more values within the doc that need new text to >>> cover (25-40% more) >>> >>> - I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status as >>> informational to either standards track or BCP. >>> >>> - I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc and have >>> significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing text >>> from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this change % >>> to remain or increase. >>> >>> - 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a while (that >>> I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or acquired)). >>> >>> This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view since the >>> community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and >>> overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page vs. an >>> authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section. >>> >>> Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be in a >>> contributors section since this new version of the doc is based on work >>> previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original text >>> left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and add my >>> name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous RFC's >>> authors/editors listed in a contributor's section). >>> >>> Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or opinions how >>> I should handle this? >>> >>> James >>> > > From henrik@levkowetz.com Thu Jan 19 07:20:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E5621F85D6; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:20:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.85 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j54SYsk2gRaG; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:20:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (merlot.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31::14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B1321F85C2; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:20:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from brunello.autonomica.se ([2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e]:49963 helo=brunello.netnod.se) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RntmN-0004Zs-3t; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:19:57 +0100 Message-ID: <4F183499.5080705@levkowetz.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:19:53 +0100 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fred Baker References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> <5215525E-029B-4833-8366-5FDFB85AEFCF@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5215525E-029B-4833-8366-5FDFB85AEFCF@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: fred@cisco.com, tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com, wgchairs@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:57:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org) Cc: Working Group Chairs , Tools Team Discussion X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:20:10 -0000 Hi Tom, Fred, On 2012-01-18 22:00 Fred Baker said: > > On Jan 18, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Tom Taylor wrote: > >> I recently changed my E-mail address. Thanks to the global change interface at >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options// >> >> (login required per our monthly reminder E-mails), it was quick and easy to change my address for all the lists to which I am subscribed. I've also updated my address when submitting updates to the drafts I'm working on. However, the Datatracker E-mail aliases for those drafts still seem to reflect my old address, and I'm now failing to receive messages from ADs or the system relating to them. >> >> Is this a process glitch? >> >> Tom Taylor > > Copying tools-discuss@. The datatracker.ietf.org and tools.ietf.org are different systems with different databases. Sounds like an API glitch between them. There's no coupling from email changes for the Mailman lists and email changes for drafts in general. I've checked the draft alias list, and for a number of drafts, the aliases reflect the new , but there are still some where the old address is present. I've now added an entry to my fixup-table so that on the next generation of the alias list the old address will be replaced with the new one. Best regards, Henrik From henrik@levkowetz.com Thu Jan 19 07:38:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9585F21F85FF for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:38:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LTTQN2RtAvqW for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:38:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (merlot.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31::14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEEA21F85DA for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:38:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from brunello.autonomica.se ([2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e]:50098 helo=brunello.netnod.se) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Rnu3z-0001QX-Sb; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:38:09 +0100 Message-ID: <4F1838DE.3060503@levkowetz.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:38:06 +0100 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ross Callon References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> <4F176BC7.1020703@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rcallon@juniper.net, tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com, loa@pi.nu, wgchairs@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:57:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org) Cc: "wgchairs@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:38:23 -0000 Hi Ross, On 2012-01-19 04:56 Ross Callon said: > I have never trusted the Internet-Draft-specific email address for > the simple reason that I can't know for sure who it is really going > to. I therefore tend to copy the email addresses from the I.D. when > sending email that needs to go to the authors. The draft alias list can be inspected here: http://mail.tools.ietf.org/draft/aliases The page requires login to prevent harvesting. Best regards, Henrik > > Ross > > -----Original Message----- > From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Taylor > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 8:03 PM > To: Loa Andersson > Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases > > The thing is, I did update the drafts (as I mentioned below). The > E-mails are still going to the wrong address, I think. (I ran an > experiment with one of them and got nothing back.) > > On 18/01/2012 4:55 PM, Loa Andersson wrote: >> Tom, All, >> >> the data tracker aliases reflects what is the drafts. I've seen this >> discussion before and after thinking a bit I believe it as it should be. >> The easiest way to change what is in the data tracker aliases is to >> update the draft. >> >> My take is that some that sends to a data tracker alias should have >> a chance to know where goes, it might be a difference to send to >> john.doe@companyA.com as compared to have the mail show up at >> john.doe@companyB.com. >> >> /Loa >> >> >> On 2012-01-18 19:59, Tom Taylor wrote: >>> I recently changed my E-mail address. Thanks to the global change >>> interface at >>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options// >>> >>> (login required per our monthly reminder E-mails), it was quick and easy >>> to change my address for all the lists to which I am subscribed. I've >>> also updated my address when submitting updates to the drafts I'm >>> working on. However, the Datatracker E-mail aliases for those drafts >>> still seem to reflect my old address, and I'm now failing to receive >>> messages from ADs or the system relating to them. >>> >>> Is this a process glitch? >>> >>> Tom Taylor >> > From rcallon@juniper.net Fri Jan 20 09:35:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F039A21F85ED for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:35:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.645 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.645 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q-HFZpsvjs7C for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og125.obsmtp.com (exprod7og125.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A84121F85F4 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob125.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTxml2X8J56pNLBpBO1DamOqYFLvSm6J3@postini.com; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:35:35 PST Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:35:20 -0800 Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:35:20 -0800 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:35:16 -0500 From: Ross Callon To: Henrik Levkowetz Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:35:14 -0500 Subject: RE: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases Thread-Topic: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases Thread-Index: AczWwGQkC4OUkWkAQEOozmgYz7FgFgA2OqoQ Message-ID: References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> <4F176BC7.1020703@gmail.com> <4F1838DE.3060503@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <4F1838DE.3060503@levkowetz.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "wgchairs@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:35:36 -0000 Cool! Thanks. This didn't exactly display in the most user friendly format,= but the information does indeed seem to all be there.=20 If we happen to notice an old obsolete email address in this list (multiple= times), and know the correct updated email address for the same person, is= there an easy way to get this fixed?=20 Thanks, Ross -----Original Message----- From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:henrik@levkowetz.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:38 AM To: Ross Callon Cc: Tom Taylor; Loa Andersson; wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases Hi Ross, On 2012-01-19 04:56 Ross Callon said: > I have never trusted the Internet-Draft-specific email address for > the simple reason that I can't know for sure who it is really going > to. I therefore tend to copy the email addresses from the I.D. when > sending email that needs to go to the authors. The draft alias list can be inspected here: http://mail.tools.ietf.org/draft/aliases =09 The page requires login to prevent harvesting. Best regards, Henrik >=20 > Ross >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Tom Taylor > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 8:03 PM > To: Loa Andersson > Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases >=20 > The thing is, I did update the drafts (as I mentioned below). The=20 > E-mails are still going to the wrong address, I think. (I ran an=20 > experiment with one of them and got nothing back.) >=20 > On 18/01/2012 4:55 PM, Loa Andersson wrote: >> Tom, All, >> >> the data tracker aliases reflects what is the drafts. I've seen this >> discussion before and after thinking a bit I believe it as it should be. >> The easiest way to change what is in the data tracker aliases is to >> update the draft. >> >> My take is that some that sends to a data tracker alias should have >> a chance to know where goes, it might be a difference to send to >> john.doe@companyA.com as compared to have the mail show up at >> john.doe@companyB.com. >> >> /Loa >> >> >> On 2012-01-18 19:59, Tom Taylor wrote: >>> I recently changed my E-mail address. Thanks to the global change >>> interface at >>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options// >>> >>> (login required per our monthly reminder E-mails), it was quick and eas= y >>> to change my address for all the lists to which I am subscribed. I've >>> also updated my address when submitting updates to the drafts I'm >>> working on. However, the Datatracker E-mail aliases for those drafts >>> still seem to reflect my old address, and I'm now failing to receive >>> messages from ADs or the system relating to them. >>> >>> Is this a process glitch? >>> >>> Tom Taylor >> >=20 From henrik@levkowetz.com Fri Jan 20 09:57:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AAC121F852C for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:57:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.766 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uoYLzmWpLT8u for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:57:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C2B21F858A for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:57:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49794 helo=vigonier.lan ident=henrik) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RoIi1-0005Q5-Re; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:57:05 +0100 Message-ID: <4F19AAF1.5040002@levkowetz.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:57:05 +0100 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ross Callon Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> <4F176BC7.1020703@gmail.com> <4F1838DE.3060503@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rcallon@juniper.net, tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com, loa@pi.nu, wgchairs@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: "wgchairs@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:57:14 -0000 Hi Ross, On 2012-01-20 18:35 Ross Callon said the following: > Cool! Thanks. This didn't exactly display in the most user friendly > format, but the information does indeed seem to all be there. Yes, it's just the alias file as-is. > If we happen to notice an old obsolete email address in this list > (multiple times), and know the correct updated email address for the > same person, is there an easy way to get this fixed? I have a fixup table from old to new addresses, but no web interface to it. It's easy enough for me to add such, though, and if it should happen that I get a lot of requests, I'm sure I will put in place a self-service page to handle it :-) For now, let me know and I'll add the old -> new entries needed manually. Best regards, Henrik > Thanks, Ross > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:henrik@levkowetz.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:38 AM > To: Ross Callon > Cc: Tom Taylor; Loa Andersson; wgchairs@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases > > Hi Ross, > > On 2012-01-19 04:56 Ross Callon said: >> I have never trusted the Internet-Draft-specific email address for >> the simple reason that I can't know for sure who it is really going >> to. I therefore tend to copy the email addresses from the I.D. when >> sending email that needs to go to the authors. > > The draft alias list can be inspected here: > > http://mail.tools.ietf.org/draft/aliases > > The page requires login to prevent harvesting. > > > Best regards, > > Henrik > >> >> Ross >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Taylor >> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 8:03 PM >> To: Loa Andersson >> Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases >> >> The thing is, I did update the drafts (as I mentioned below). The >> E-mails are still going to the wrong address, I think. (I ran an >> experiment with one of them and got nothing back.) >> >> On 18/01/2012 4:55 PM, Loa Andersson wrote: >>> Tom, All, >>> >>> the data tracker aliases reflects what is the drafts. I've seen this >>> discussion before and after thinking a bit I believe it as it should be. >>> The easiest way to change what is in the data tracker aliases is to >>> update the draft. >>> >>> My take is that some that sends to a data tracker alias should have >>> a chance to know where goes, it might be a difference to send to >>> john.doe@companyA.com as compared to have the mail show up at >>> john.doe@companyB.com. >>> >>> /Loa >>> >>> >>> On 2012-01-18 19:59, Tom Taylor wrote: >>>> I recently changed my E-mail address. Thanks to the global change >>>> interface at >>>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options// >>>> >>>> (login required per our monthly reminder E-mails), it was quick and easy >>>> to change my address for all the lists to which I am subscribed. I've >>>> also updated my address when submitting updates to the drafts I'm >>>> working on. However, the Datatracker E-mail aliases for those drafts >>>> still seem to reflect my old address, and I'm now failing to receive >>>> messages from ADs or the system relating to them. >>>> >>>> Is this a process glitch? >>>> >>>> Tom Taylor >>> >> > From eburger@standardstrack.com Sun Jan 22 17:48:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41CA521F85AC for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:48:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.114 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.114 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.115, BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i16tYT8T6CMt for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:48:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.254.120]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E95721F85A3 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:48:25 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=standardstrack.com; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir; b=kcpAmP8l/DnfdNhAEG1BL9qnadDIE6N5gOkxCFWfBnxY8Oa8GLvT6rPY+n8+5/4yHnfnL8179Cmsv+GZUbrcWkk9Kb4H4X4BRYVKgzp2Vw3cwCMC+YCoFzL4C1NyfdiK; Received: from ip68-100-199-8.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.199.8]:58172 helo=[192.168.15.184]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rp91C-0001em-Vn for wgchairs@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:48:23 -0800 From: Eric Burger Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-79--1063731675; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:48:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> To: Working Group Chairs References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> Message-Id: <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:48:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail-79--1063731675 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii [Speaking as a WG Chair, NOT as a Trustee of the IETF Trust] There are two issues here. The first is plagiarism and the second is = copyright. Let me start with the second. The IETF Trust holds the = copyright on most RFCs. In particular, that is to enable the IETF to = create derivative works, especially when the original authors are = unreachable, don't care anymore, or are dead. So, don't worry about = whether a document can be updated. The first issue is a bit more difficult. Especially if the authors are = from the academic community, there is an expectation that if a paper has = content from an individual, that individual gets listed as an author. = One thing that we seem to be forgetting in this thread is "the list of = people listed on the first page of an RFC" is NOT NECESSARILY the list = of authors. It is often one or more editors, collecting the wisdom of a = work group. Which individual gets their stamp on which sentence in the = RFC? Likewise, what if there really are 15 authors? We regularly move = the list inside the document and only list the document editor(s) on the = first page. That said, it would be totally unconscionable to not at least = acknowledge original authors and editors if one was producing a new = document based on an old document. If one is not making substantial = changes, then one would hope you would do your best to contact and = involve the original authors. However, there is no requirement for such. = Do remember, the community will treat you VERY poorly if you treat old = authors poorly. On Jan 19, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Hi James, >=20 > I asked the exact same question to my AD (Dan Romascanu) while working = on the RFC5101bis and RFC5102bis. I shared his answer verbatim to the = IPFIX mailing > Knowing that the authors list is sometimes a sensitive topic, I've = been seeking for advice and guidelines when publishing draft standards = and I received the following answer: > The most used current practice is to list on the first page only the = editors of the latest version and to start the Acknowledgments section = by mentioning the full list of the authors of the previous RFC and = mention that this work is based upon and develops the original RFC.=20 > At least, everybody is warned in advance (or at least while working on = the doc.): "you are more than welcome to participate, otherwise your = name will be moved to the ACK section." >=20 > Regards, Benoit > . >> Chairs=20 >>=20 >> I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on = authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little unusual = in several ways (at least it is for me):=20 >>=20 >> - it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to=20 >>=20 >> - increase the strength of the document (see bullet below),=20 >> and=20 >>=20 >> - assign more values within the doc that need new text to=20 >> cover (25-40% more)=20 >>=20 >> - I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status as = informational to either standards track or BCP.=20 >>=20 >> - I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc and = have significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing = text from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this = change % to remain or increase.=20 >>=20 >> - 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a while = (that I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or = acquired)).=20 >>=20 >> This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view since = the community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and = overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page vs. an = authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section.=20 >>=20 >> Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be in a = contributors section since this new version of the doc is based on work = previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original text = left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and add my = name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous RFC's = authors/editors listed in a contributor's section).=20 >>=20 >> Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or opinions = how I should handle this?=20 >>=20 >> James=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-79--1063731675 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIPODCCBN0w ggPFoAMCAQICEHGS++YZX6xNEoV0cTSiGKcwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwezELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgMEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBwwHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UECgwR Q29tb2RvIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxITAfBgNVBAMMGEFBQSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTZXJ2aWNlczAeFw0w NDAxMDEwMDAwMDBaFw0yODEyMzEyMzU5NTlaMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQx FzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsx ITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJz dC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8A MIIBCgKCAQEAsjmFpPJ9q0E7YkY3rs3BYHW8OWX5ShpHornMSMxqmNVNNRm5pELlzkniii8efNIx B8dOtINknS4p1aJkxIW9hVE1eaROaJB7HHqkkqgX8pgV8pPMyaQylbsMTzC9mKALi+VuG6JG+ni8 om+rWV6lL8/K2m2qL+usobNqqrcuZzWLeeEeaYji5kbNoKXqvgvOdjp6Dpvq/NonWz1zHyLmSGHG TPNpsaguG7bUMSAsvIKKjqQOpdeJQ/wWWq8dcdcRWdq6hw2v+vPhwvCkxWeM1tZUOt4KpLoDd7Nl yP0e03RiqhjKaJMeoYV+9Udly/hNVyh00jT/MLbu9mIwFIws6wIDAQABo4IBJzCCASMwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUoBEKIz6W8Qfs4q8p74Klf9AwpLQwHQYDVR0OBBYEFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59 MA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/MB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggr BgEFBQcDBDARBgNVHSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAwewYDVR0fBHQwcjA4oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC5j b21vZG9jYS5jb20vQUFBQ2VydGlmaWNhdGVTZXJ2aWNlcy5jcmwwNqA0oDKGMGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwu Y29tb2RvLm5ldC9BQUFDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZVNlcnZpY2VzLmNybDARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCAQYw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAJ2Vyzy4fqUJxB6/C8LHdo45PJTGEKpPDMngq4RdiVTgZTvzbRx8 NywlVF+WIfw3hJGdFdwUT4HPVB1rbEVgxy35l1FM+WbKPKCCjKbI8OLp1Er57D9Wyd12jMOCAU9s APMeGmF0BEcDqcZAV5G8ZSLFJ2dPV9tkWtmNH7qGL/QGrpxp7en0zykX2OBKnxogL5dMUbtGB8SK N04g4wkxaMeexIud6H4RvDJoEJYRmETYKlFgTYjrdDrfQwYyyDlWjDoRUtNBpEMD9O3vMyfbOeAU TibJ2PU54om4k123KSZB6rObroP8d3XK6Mq1/uJlSmM+RMTQw16Hc6mYHK9/FX8wggUaMIIEAqAD AgECAhBtGeqnGU9qMyLmIjJ6qnHeMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkG A1UECBMCVVQxFzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNU IE5ldHdvcmsxITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVRO LVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsMB4XDTExMDQyODAwMDAw MFoXDTIwMDUzMDEwNDgzOFowgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNo ZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMTkwNwYD VQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0EwggEi MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCShIRbS1eY1F4vi6ThQMijU1hfZmXxMk73nzJ9 VdB4TFW3QpTg+SdxB8XGaaS5MsTxQBqQzCdWYn8XtXFpruUgG+TLY15gyqJB9mrho/+43x9IbWVD jCouK2M4d9+xF6zC2oIC1tQyatRnbyATj1w1+uVUgK/YcQodNwoCUFNslR2pEBS0mZVZEjH/CaLS TNxS297iQAFbSGjdxUq04O0kHzqvcV8H46y/FDuwJXFoPfQP1hdYRhWBPGiLi4MPbXohV+Y0sNsy fuNK4aVScmQmkU6lkg//4LFg/RpvaFGZY40ai6XMQpubfSJj06mg/M6ekN9EGfRcWzW6FvOnm//B AgMBAAGjggFLMIIBRzAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSJgmd9xJ0mcABLtFBIfN49rgRufTAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU ehNOAHRbxnhjZCfBL+KgW7x5xXswDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAw EQYDVR0gBAowCDAGBgRVHSAAMFgGA1UdHwRRME8wTaBLoEmGR2h0dHA6Ly9jcmwudXNlcnRydXN0 LmNvbS9VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kRW1haWwuY3JsMHQGCCsG AQUFBwEBBGgwZjA9BggrBgEFBQcwAoYxaHR0cDovL2NydC51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tL1VUTkFkZFRy dXN0Q2xpZW50X0NBLmNydDAlBggrBgEFBQcwAYYZaHR0cDovL29jc3AudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAhda+eFdVbTN/RFL+QtUGqAEDgIr7DbL9Sr/2r0FJ9RtaxdKtG3Nu PukmfOZMmMEwKN/L+0I8oSU+CnXW0D05hmbRoZu1TZtvryhsHa/l6nRaqNqxwPF1ei+eupN5yv7i kR5WdLL4jdPgQ3Ib7Y/9YDkgR/uLrzplSDyYPaUlv73vYOBJ5RbI6z9Dg/Dg7g3B080zX5vQvWBq szv++tTJOjwf7Zv/m0kzvkIpOYPuM2kugp1FTahp2oAbHj3SGl18R5mlmwhtEpmG1l1XBxunML5L SUS4kH7K0Xk467Qz+qA6XSZYnmFVGLQh1ZnV4ENAQjC+6qXnlNKw/vN1+X9u5zCCBTUwggQdoAMC AQICEDWub7CYfsGXUhthgY5vuwcwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYD VQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9E TyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBT ZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0EwHhcNMTEwOTA5MDAwMDAwWhcNMTIwOTA4MjM1OTU5WjArMSkwJwYJKoZI hvcNAQkBFhplYnVyZ2VyQHN0YW5kYXJkc3RyYWNrLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEP ADCCAQoCggEBAML1VN+kPTw2iXeq1Yag6nChmCSmvCGACE3X9APNsUP2GvbYNFj6qdkayJJdhy0T aIzCiMW01sD5mSV4mi0w8EfXKn/cwqi1Brw06fwaI4T2iGXA/0zb272GR57uoH1VjMd0/Qc1h2CJ 9ueUwsxP9ufXm7Kb9+DkLGDAU+6jQQv9rTiNz8sSyjOTSmtrsVpk5MTRn0np6fybkyxcjNy2cLTX 56+gfF4SxgukWt0XAWI49y+PAp2AyG9RxX/1kTZPCEPLzitGpDTGPN7HH9sdvXyyhNT73i20BtZ0 FHRfhLIo1bRqnl3W06JjVOkNbUxFbE4p01FrF7O/kRk+WZ+FMVcCAwEAAaOCAeowggHmMB8GA1Ud IwQYMBaAFHoTTgB0W8Z4Y2QnwS/ioFu8ecV7MB0GA1UdDgQWBBSMC0QogJ7C8csD5XuRaGotm7qC mDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADAgBgNVHSUEGTAXBggrBgEFBQcDBAYLKwYB BAGyMQEDBQIwEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEBBAQDAgUgMEYGA1UdIAQ/MD0wOwYMKwYBBAGyMQECAQEBMCsw KQYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHWh0dHBzOi8vc2VjdXJlLmNvbW9kby5uZXQvQ1BTMFcGA1UdHwRQME4wTKBK oEiGRmh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5k U2VjdXJlRW1haWxDQS5jcmwwgYgGCCsGAQUFBwEBBHwwejBSBggrBgEFBQcwAoZGaHR0cDovL2Ny dC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20vQ09NT0RPQ2xpZW50QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb25hbmRTZWN1cmVFbWFpbENB LmNydDAkBggrBgEFBQcwAYYYaHR0cDovL29jc3AuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tMCUGA1UdEQQeMByBGmVi dXJnZXJAc3RhbmRhcmRzdHJhY2suY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQATedFpXp5JcVGrEipp KirfegdjPe823Noihn8K6Em01BbEuUsPgHVY/a/6v0UNICBEAuQCwF4aJxuxSBN2GZ6XasVvlg+R nMnJP6ZZLkd8QmRSmt/AyzxCXkDQdPEJ41+ioNUmVpnGHtHliaT8yEF9EwmMDsy+efbjWomPIx5P e6MWJX/W2qQ60WhPQxD1U+3VbqWYtn6j9M89JpgQyjYku8C+oOuFUnZskIjbnWMsB3ahHEUympe0 okQT0frCohstkscVkhk63zLmHaUmhKGrJvVwFK+RBBAzuVJcwmEvQqsrczwtlO5E/Qr729Kbch6A JfmJZ7fJIL1+RbB7ORZNMYIDqzCCA6cCAQEwgagwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJH cmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBM aW1pdGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUg RW1haWwgQ0ECEDWub7CYfsGXUhthgY5vuwcwCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCCAdcwGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsG CSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTIwMTIzMDE0ODIzWjAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQU 76cjoORTQIxVy2uWrL+OAI26tgswgbkGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDGBqzCBqDCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMR Q09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24g YW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQQIQNa5vsJh+wZdSG2GBjm+7BzCBuwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgaug gagwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcT B1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xp ZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0ECEDWub7CYfsGXUhthgY5vuwcw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAvzEbKJkWfovRyX7zH+BUVxZxnQQ90coLClGJSjwHAU0CiNM5Hzm5 2YXzpvAS0YGWwWqG+0mdCVKkKjOHnQ2RNTsSbY1fJxM95dlQzjvdPw53OLQv3WfhO0EYq+zmJzYm 4mnQa4dZmBZ2KnUec2rqYgiPd3UFbdbYpjyI/ZRTKvihkcZtqoTr+njPE0OFOcUhyUTCiLAWxW/r 7hBKaK6qit590D93pcyJND9ayQnPXL9D24AcL1nbQbsKRRoeDh/kyezPyMzshD0cu9mb7u0r4WKm IW3KkzLHihOhJs2G+c5BjPrRLmh3dk29RuLieblMzkJrVqyEigtLsjxtS1fTEAAAAAAAAA== --Apple-Mail-79--1063731675-- From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Jan 23 08:50:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8672221F8734 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:50:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v8Jt1Gaz3vnb for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:50:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366F121F8710 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:50:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:50:29 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:50:29 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Henrik Levkowetz , Ross Callon Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:50:28 -0800 Subject: RE: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases Thread-Topic: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases Thread-Index: AczXnPJUWzTn91V9TsWYzOY/CMvbLQCUfDbQ Message-ID: References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> <4F176BC7.1020703@gmail.com> <4F1838DE.3060503@levkowetz.com> <4F19AAF1.5040002@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <4F19AAF1.5040002@levkowetz.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "wgchairs@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:50:30 -0000 While we're on the topic, I would be happy++ if the datatracker had a way t= o subscribe to specific draft aliases. Right now if I want to be notified = of activity regarding drafts that are of particular interest but don't list= me as author, AD or shepherd, I need to go back and check on it manually f= rom time to time. -MSK From amalis@gmail.com Mon Jan 23 10:03:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8093F21F86B8 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:03:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jTJxlivy1Kg3 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:03:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CA721F86B6 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:03:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by ggnq4 with SMTP id q4so976783ggn.31 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:03:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=L8FdS2TmGi0mGo44FlHT+azwDSeQwKcANjqFqor4v6o=; b=WUY/IIo1egcNE3eHR9YPjsiumQrFHvpEbEehrtyZ0YtWIh3OJNzG0DAwJw/qt0YCKY 8qCQIZmW4ndIofOZEb3N0DnGm4G2pHx4h5XZLaYp/15simj0UTxmsO59Kq2R4YkDVCoj ATyse6+fL+cvv0kR8rAGSDmTZCyRhve4XoUFM= Received: by 10.50.169.9 with SMTP id aa9mr10732078igc.23.1327341775270; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:02:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.168.69 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:02:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F1838DE.3060503@levkowetz.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com> <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> <4F176BC7.1020703@gmail.com> <4F1838DE.3060503@levkowetz.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:02:34 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases To: Henrik Levkowetz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3bb04502b33804b735d770 Cc: "wgchairs@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:03:05 -0000 --e89a8f3bb04502b33804b735d770 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Talk about a walk down memory lane ... it looks like every draft I've worked on since the mid-90s or so is in here. :-) Cheers, Andy On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Hi Ross, > > On 2012-01-19 04:56 Ross Callon said: > > I have never trusted the Internet-Draft-specific email address for > > the simple reason that I can't know for sure who it is really going > > to. I therefore tend to copy the email addresses from the I.D. when > > sending email that needs to go to the authors. > > The draft alias list can be inspected here: > > http://mail.tools.ietf.org/draft/aliases > > The page requires login to prevent harvesting. > > > Best regards, > > Henrik > > > > > Ross > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Taylor > > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 8:03 PM > > To: Loa Andersson > > Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases > > > > The thing is, I did update the drafts (as I mentioned below). The > > E-mails are still going to the wrong address, I think. (I ran an > > experiment with one of them and got nothing back.) > > > > On 18/01/2012 4:55 PM, Loa Andersson wrote: > >> Tom, All, > >> > >> the data tracker aliases reflects what is the drafts. I've seen this > >> discussion before and after thinking a bit I believe it as it should be. > >> The easiest way to change what is in the data tracker aliases is to > >> update the draft. > >> > >> My take is that some that sends to a data tracker alias should have > >> a chance to know where goes, it might be a difference to send to > >> john.doe@companyA.com as compared to have the mail show up at > >> john.doe@companyB.com. > >> > >> /Loa > >> > >> > >> On 2012-01-18 19:59, Tom Taylor wrote: > >>> I recently changed my E-mail address. Thanks to the global change > >>> interface at > >>> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options// > >>> > >>> (login required per our monthly reminder E-mails), it was quick and > easy > >>> to change my address for all the lists to which I am subscribed. I've > >>> also updated my address when submitting updates to the drafts I'm > >>> working on. However, the Datatracker E-mail aliases for those drafts > >>> still seem to reflect my old address, and I'm now failing to receive > >>> messages from ADs or the system relating to them. > >>> > >>> Is this a process glitch? > >>> > >>> Tom Taylor > >> > > > --e89a8f3bb04502b33804b735d770 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Talk about a walk down memory lane ... it looks like every draft I've w= orked on since the mid-90s or so is in here. :-)

Cheers,
Andy
=
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Henrik Lev= kowetz <henrik= @levkowetz.com> wrote:

Hi Ross,

On 2012-01-19 04= :56 Ross Callon said:
> I have never trusted the Internet-Draft-specific email address for
> the simple reason that I can't know for sure who it is really goin= g
> to. I therefore tend to copy the email addresses from the I.D. when > sending email that needs to go to the authors.

The draft alias list can be inspected here:

=A0= http://mail.tools.ietf.org/draft/aliases

The page requires login to prevent harvesting.

Best regards,

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Henrik

>
> Ross
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wgchairs-bounces@ie= tf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bo= unces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 8:03 PM
> To: Loa Andersson
> Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases
>
> The thing is, I did update the drafts (as I mentioned below). The
> E-mails are still going to the wrong address, I think. (I ran an
> experiment with one of them and got nothing back.)
>
> On 18/01/2012 4:55 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Tom, All,
>>
>> the data tracker aliases reflects what is the drafts. I've see= n this
>> discussion before and after thinking a bit I believe it as it shou= ld be.
>> The easiest way to change what is in the data tracker aliases is t= o
>> update the draft.
>>
>> My take is that some that sends to a data tracker alias should hav= e
>> a chance to know where goes, it might be a difference to send to >> john.doe@companyA.com as compared to have the mail show up at
>> john.doe@companyB.com.
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>>
>> On 2012-01-= 18 19:59, Tom Taylor wrote:
>>> I recently changed my E-mail address. Thanks to the global cha= nge
>>> interface at
>>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/<wgname>/<your E-ma= il address>
>>>
>>> (login required per our monthly reminder E-mails), it was quic= k and easy
>>> to change my address for all the lists to which I am subscribe= d. I've
>>> also updated my address when submitting updates to the drafts = I'm
>>> working on. However, the Datatracker E-mail aliases for those = drafts
>>> still seem to reflect my old address, and I'm now failing = to receive
>>> messages from ADs or the system relating to them.
>>>
>>> Is this a process glitch?
>>>
>>> Tom Taylor
>>
>

--e89a8f3bb04502b33804b735d770-- From dcrocker@bbiw.net Mon Jan 23 10:53:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E51C721F85F8 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:53:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kD0zMHyR60l1 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:53:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D4D121F856A for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:53:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (adsl-67-124-148-117.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.148.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0NIqrCR015530 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:52:59 -0800 Message-ID: <4F1DAC84.9020503@bbiw.net> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:52:52 -0800 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> <4F176BC7.1020703@gmail.com> <4F1838DE.3060503@levkowetz.com> <4F19AAF1.5040002@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:53:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: "wgchairs@ietf.org" , Henrik Levkowetz X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:53:03 -0000 On 1/23/2012 8:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > While we're on the topic, I would be happy++ if the datatracker had a way to subscribe to specific draft aliases. Right now if I want to be notified of activity regarding drafts that are of particular interest but don't list me as author, AD or shepherd, I need to go back and check on it manually from time to time. I'd recommend an rss feed, rather than a mailing list mechanism. this moves the entire task of keeping the associations up to date over to the subscriber. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From housley@vigilsec.com Mon Jan 23 12:04:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D63B21F8709 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:04:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jh8AyvxvHG2l for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:04:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB28021F86CA for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:04:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2842BF24024; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:04:48 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GB5hGQMRLGav; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:03:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.104] (pool-96-241-165-215.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.165.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5632EF2408D; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:04:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Updating of Datatracker E-mail aliases Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:04:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: , <6.2.5.6.2.20111223121406.09013e60@elandnews.com>, <4F17169F.5070509@gmail.com> <4F173FDF.9070104@pi.nu> <4F176BC7.1020703@gmail.com> <4F1838DE.3060503@levkowetz.com> <4F19AAF1.5040002@levkowetz.com> To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "wgchairs@ietf.org" , Henrik Levkowetz X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:04:27 -0000 The equivalent of this capability is in the works. Anyone will be able = to list the document that they care about and be notified of datatracker = changes. This capability is of interest to many people, not just WG = chairs. See http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6293.txt Russ On Jan 23, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I would be happy++ if the datatracker had a way to subscribe to = specific draft aliases. From wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com Tue Jan 24 09:07:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietf.org Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id C393C11E8075; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST) From: IETF Agenda To: Working Group Chairs Subject: 83rd IETF - Working Group Chairs Training Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20120124170732.C393C11E8075@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST) Cc: irsg@irtf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:07:32 -0000 During the Wednesday lunch slot (11:30am - 1:00pm) at IETF 83rd in Paris, we will be holding a WG chairs' training session on �Introduction to new Data Tracker DB�. Please come to share your ideas on this topic. This session is open to all current WG chairs, BOF chairs, IESG members, and WG Secretaries. We will include a complementary lunch. Henrik Levkowetz will lead the discussion. If you would like to attend this session, please RSVP to agenda@ietf.org by Wednesday, March 14, 2012. The location will be sent to those who RSVP. Thanks, Wanda From touch@isi.edu Tue Jan 24 10:30:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6CC811E80B4 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:30:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wlp254agKPNL for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:30:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0928411E809D for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:30:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.2.242.93] ([12.35.79.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0OITlLY001324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:29:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:29:48 -0800 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Burger Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> In-Reply-To: <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:30:24 -0000 Hi, all, On 1/22/2012 5:48 PM, Eric Burger wrote: > [Speaking as a WG Chair, NOT as a Trustee of the IETF Trust] > > There are two issues here. The first is plagiarism and the second is > copyright. Let me start with the second. The IETF Trust holds the > copyright on most RFCs. In particular, that is to enable the IETF to > create derivative works, especially when the original authors are > unreachable, don't care anymore, or are dead. So, don't worry about > whether a document can be updated. > > The first issue is a bit more difficult. Especially if the authors > are from the academic community, I'd classify that as "professional" community; industry has similar internal policies to those publicized at universities, FWIW. > there is an expectation that if a > paper has content from an individual, that individual gets listed as > an author. One thing that we seem to be forgetting in this thread is > "the list of people listed on the first page of an RFC" is NOT > NECESSARILY the list of authors. The authors list is that, except where noted explicitly otherwise - e.g., with the note "(Editor)" or abbreviation thereof. RFCs haven't redefined that concept. > It is often one or more editors, > collecting the wisdom of a work group. Which individual gets their > stamp on which sentence in the RFC? Likewise, what if there really > are 15 authors? We regularly move the list inside the document and > only list the document editor(s) on the first page. That's done with books as well - e.g., where a book is a series of chapters, each written by different authors, and the whole set edited by the named editor. > That said, it would be totally unconscionable to not at least > acknowledge original authors and editors if one was producing a new > document based on an old document. If one is not making substantial > changes, then one would hope you would do your best to contact and > involve the original authors. However, there is no requirement for such. > Do remember, the community will treat you VERY poorly if you treat old > authors poorly. I agree that this is the punchline. The RFC publications process needs to bend to consider what happens when we reuse the words of others, and be more flexible in allowing the corresponding author to confirm final decisions. I don't think we should try to have the RFC publications process try to redefine authorship or plagiarism concepts as an alternative to that. Joe > > On Jan 19, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > >> Hi James, >> >> I asked the exact same question to my AD (Dan Romascanu) while working on the RFC5101bis and RFC5102bis. I shared his answer verbatim to the IPFIX mailing >> Knowing that the authors list is sometimes a sensitive topic, I've been seeking for advice and guidelines when publishing draft standards and I received the following answer: >> The most used current practice is to list on the first page only the editors of the latest version and to start the Acknowledgments section by mentioning the full list of the authors of the previous RFC and mention that this work is based upon and develops the original RFC. >> At least, everybody is warned in advance (or at least while working on the doc.): "you are more than welcome to participate, otherwise your name will be moved to the ACK section." >> >> Regards, Benoit >> . >>> Chairs >>> >>> I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little unusual in several ways (at least it is for me): >>> >>> - it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to >>> >>> - increase the strength of the document (see bullet below), >>> and >>> >>> - assign more values within the doc that need new text to >>> cover (25-40% more) >>> >>> - I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status as informational to either standards track or BCP. >>> >>> - I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc and have significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing text from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this change % to remain or increase. >>> >>> - 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a while (that I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or acquired)). >>> >>> This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view since the community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page vs. an authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section. >>> >>> Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be in a contributors section since this new version of the doc is based on work previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original text left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and add my name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous RFC's authors/editors listed in a contributor's section). >>> >>> Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or opinions how I should handle this? >>> >>> James >>> >>> >> > From heard@pobox.com Tue Jan 24 19:55:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F54F11E80AF for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:55:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4FhkX2lpgm-Y for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:55:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2C811E80A5 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:55:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 5640 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2012 19:55:02 -0800 Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 24 Jan 2012 19:55:02 -0800 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:55:02 -0800 (PST) From: "C. M. Heard" X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net To: Joe Touch Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures In-Reply-To: <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> Message-ID: References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:25:37 -0800 Cc: Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:55:04 -0000 Perhaps RFCs 2578, 2579, and 2580 provide a good model to follow. On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, all, > > On 1/22/2012 5:48 PM, Eric Burger wrote: > > [Speaking as a WG Chair, NOT as a Trustee of the IETF Trust] > > > > There are two issues here. The first is plagiarism and the second is > > copyright. Let me start with the second. The IETF Trust holds the > > copyright on most RFCs. In particular, that is to enable the IETF to > > create derivative works, especially when the original authors are > > unreachable, don't care anymore, or are dead. So, don't worry about > > whether a document can be updated. > > > > The first issue is a bit more difficult. Especially if the authors > > are from the academic community, > > I'd classify that as "professional" community; industry has similar internal > policies to those publicized at universities, FWIW. > > > there is an expectation that if a > > paper has content from an individual, that individual gets listed as > > an author. One thing that we seem to be forgetting in this thread is > > "the list of people listed on the first page of an RFC" is NOT > > NECESSARILY the list of authors. > > The authors list is that, except where noted explicitly otherwise - e.g., with > the note "(Editor)" or abbreviation thereof. > > RFCs haven't redefined that concept. > > > It is often one or more editors, > > collecting the wisdom of a work group. Which individual gets their > > stamp on which sentence in the RFC? Likewise, what if there really > > are 15 authors? We regularly move the list inside the document and > > only list the document editor(s) on the first page. > > That's done with books as well - e.g., where a book is a series of chapters, > each written by different authors, and the whole set edited by the named > editor. > > > That said, it would be totally unconscionable to not at least > > acknowledge original authors and editors if one was producing a new > > document based on an old document. If one is not making substantial > > changes, then one would hope you would do your best to contact and > > involve the original authors. However, there is no requirement for such. > > Do remember, the community will treat you VERY poorly if you treat old > > authors poorly. > > I agree that this is the punchline. The RFC publications process needs to bend > to consider what happens when we reuse the words of others, and be more > flexible in allowing the corresponding author to confirm final decisions. I > don't think we should try to have the RFC publications process try to redefine > authorship or plagiarism concepts as an alternative to that. > > Joe > > > > > On Jan 19, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > > > > > Hi James, > > > > > > I asked the exact same question to my AD (Dan Romascanu) while working on > > > the RFC5101bis and RFC5102bis. I shared his answer verbatim to the IPFIX > > > mailing > > > Knowing that the authors list is sometimes a sensitive topic, I've been > > > seeking for advice and guidelines when publishing draft standards and I > > > received the following answer: > > > The most used current practice is to list on the first page only the > > > editors of the latest version and to start the Acknowledgments section by > > > mentioning the full list of the authors of the previous RFC and mention > > > that this work is based upon and develops the original RFC. > > > At least, everybody is warned in advance (or at least while working on the > > > doc.): "you are more than welcome to participate, otherwise your name will > > > be moved to the ACK section." > > > > > > Regards, Benoit > > > . > > > > Chairs > > > > > > > > I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on > > > > authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little unusual > > > > in several ways (at least it is for me): > > > > > > > > - it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to > > > > > > > > - increase the strength of the document (see bullet below), > > > > and > > > > > > > > - assign more values within the doc that need new text to > > > > cover (25-40% more) > > > > > > > > - I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status as > > > > informational to either standards track or BCP. > > > > > > > > - I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc and have > > > > significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing text > > > > from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this change % > > > > to remain or increase. > > > > > > > > - 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a while (that > > > > I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or acquired)). > > > > > > > > This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view since the > > > > community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and > > > > overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page vs. an > > > > authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section. > > > > > > > > Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be in a > > > > contributors section since this new version of the doc is based on work > > > > previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original text > > > > left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and add my > > > > name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous RFC's > > > > authors/editors listed in a contributor's section). > > > > > > > > Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or opinions how > > > > I should handle this? > > > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com Wed Jan 25 11:28:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B5321F857D for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:28:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.916 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yvXA++UXzzJ4 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:28:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A4B21F854E for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:28:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q0PJSCN0018078 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:28:12 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:28:12 +0100 From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" To: "C. M. Heard" , Joe Touch Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:28:11 +0100 Subject: RE: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Thread-Topic: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Thread-Index: AczbjyK82SobfEiuTACXaMZEi67kfwAB9ySw Message-ID: References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.13 Cc: Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:28:15 -0000 To be honest, I think that is messy, and we could easily create examples wh= ere there is insufficient room on the cover page. I'd far rather we changed our procedures (at least for WG documents) to get= to the point where only the editor appears on the front page and we have a= separate section in the document entitled authors. To me that is also correct for AUTH48 on a WG document. The editor is the o= nly one responsible for ensuring what is published represents the document = they edited to represent working group consensus.=20 None of the authors of drafts that may have provided input to the working g= roup document fulfil that role. Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of C. M. Heard > Sent: 25 January 2012 03:55 > To: Joe Touch > Cc: Working Group Chairs > Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures >=20 > Perhaps RFCs 2578, 2579, and 2580 provide a good model to follow. >=20 > On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Joe Touch wrote: > > Hi, all, > > > > On 1/22/2012 5:48 PM, Eric Burger wrote: > > > [Speaking as a WG Chair, NOT as a Trustee of the IETF Trust] > > > > > > There are two issues here. The first is plagiarism and the second is > > > copyright. Let me start with the second. The IETF Trust holds the > > > copyright on most RFCs. In particular, that is to enable the IETF to > > > create derivative works, especially when the original authors are > > > unreachable, don't care anymore, or are dead. So, don't worry about > > > whether a document can be updated. > > > > > > The first issue is a bit more difficult. Especially if the authors > > > are from the academic community, > > > > I'd classify that as "professional" community; industry has similar > internal > > policies to those publicized at universities, FWIW. > > > > > there is an expectation that if a > > > paper has content from an individual, that individual gets listed as > > > an author. One thing that we seem to be forgetting in this thread is > > > "the list of people listed on the first page of an RFC" is NOT > > > NECESSARILY the list of authors. > > > > The authors list is that, except where noted explicitly otherwise - > e.g., with > > the note "(Editor)" or abbreviation thereof. > > > > RFCs haven't redefined that concept. > > > > > It is often one or more editors, > > > collecting the wisdom of a work group. Which individual gets their > > > stamp on which sentence in the RFC? Likewise, what if there really > > > are 15 authors? We regularly move the list inside the document and > > > only list the document editor(s) on the first page. > > > > That's done with books as well - e.g., where a book is a series of > chapters, > > each written by different authors, and the whole set edited by the name= d > > editor. > > > > > That said, it would be totally unconscionable to not at least > > > acknowledge original authors and editors if one was producing a new > > > document based on an old document. If one is not making substantial > > > changes, then one would hope you would do your best to contact and > > > involve the original authors. However, there is no requirement for > such. > > > Do remember, the community will treat you VERY poorly if you treat ol= d > > > authors poorly. > > > > I agree that this is the punchline. The RFC publications process needs > to bend > > to consider what happens when we reuse the words of others, and be more > > flexible in allowing the corresponding author to confirm final > decisions. I > > don't think we should try to have the RFC publications process try to > redefine > > authorship or plagiarism concepts as an alternative to that. > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > > > > > > > Hi James, > > > > > > > > I asked the exact same question to my AD (Dan Romascanu) while > working on > > > > the RFC5101bis and RFC5102bis. I shared his answer verbatim to the > IPFIX > > > > mailing > > > > Knowing that the authors list is sometimes a sensitive topic, I've > been > > > > seeking for advice and guidelines when publishing draft standards > and I > > > > received the following answer: > > > > The most used current practice is to list on the first page only th= e > > > > editors of the latest version and to start the Acknowledgments > section by > > > > mentioning the full list of the authors of the previous RFC and > mention > > > > that this work is based upon and develops the original RFC. > > > > At least, everybody is warned in advance (or at least while working > on the > > > > doc.): "you are more than welcome to participate, otherwise your > name will > > > > be moved to the ACK section." > > > > > > > > Regards, Benoit > > > > . > > > > > Chairs > > > > > > > > > > I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on > > > > > authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little > unusual > > > > > in several ways (at least it is for me): > > > > > > > > > > - it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to > > > > > > > > > > - increase the strength of the document (see bullet below), > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > - assign more values within the doc that need new text to > > > > > cover (25-40% more) > > > > > > > > > > - I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status a= s > > > > > informational to either standards track or BCP. > > > > > > > > > > - I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc an= d > have > > > > > significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing > text > > > > > from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this > change % > > > > > to remain or increase. > > > > > > > > > > - 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a whil= e > (that > > > > > I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or > acquired)). > > > > > > > > > > This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view > since the > > > > > community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, > and > > > > > overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page > vs. an > > > > > authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section. > > > > > > > > > > Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be i= n > a > > > > > contributors section since this new version of the doc is based o= n > work > > > > > previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original > text > > > > > left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and > add my > > > > > name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous RFC's > > > > > authors/editors listed in a contributor's section). > > > > > > > > > > Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or > opinions how > > > > > I should handle this? > > > > > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From touch@isi.edu Wed Jan 25 11:38:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4AFF21F85C4 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:38:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.569, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M8IdlUwsEa3L for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:38:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C6621F85B4 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:38:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0PJc6BE016857 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:38:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F205A1E.1090509@isi.edu> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:38:06 -0800 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: "C. M. Heard" , Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:38:57 -0000 Hi, all, I agree with Keith below *if* the update involves an editor primarily. However, the doc in question involved someone who was *writing* 90* of the doc. The simplest solution is to revise 100% of the text and be sole author or to quote/indent the borrowed text and cite it from the previous work. In that case, only the authors of the current doc need be listed. It's a mistake IMO to list "previous doc authors" separately - even on the title page. Unless there's a clear distinction in the body of whose text is old/new, the label is *meaningless*. Joe On 1/25/2012 11:28 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > To be honest, I think that is messy, and we could easily create examples where there is insufficient room on the cover page. > > I'd far rather we changed our procedures (at least for WG documents) to get to the point where only the editor appears on the front page and we have a separate section in the document entitled authors. > > To me that is also correct for AUTH48 on a WG document. The editor is the only one responsible for ensuring what is published represents the document they edited to represent working group consensus. > > None of the authors of drafts that may have provided input to the working group document fulfil that role. > > Regards > > Keith > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of C. M. Heard >> Sent: 25 January 2012 03:55 >> To: Joe Touch >> Cc: Working Group Chairs >> Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures >> >> Perhaps RFCs 2578, 2579, and 2580 provide a good model to follow. >> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Joe Touch wrote: >>> Hi, all, >>> >>> On 1/22/2012 5:48 PM, Eric Burger wrote: >>>> [Speaking as a WG Chair, NOT as a Trustee of the IETF Trust] >>>> >>>> There are two issues here. The first is plagiarism and the second is >>>> copyright. Let me start with the second. The IETF Trust holds the >>>> copyright on most RFCs. In particular, that is to enable the IETF to >>>> create derivative works, especially when the original authors are >>>> unreachable, don't care anymore, or are dead. So, don't worry about >>>> whether a document can be updated. >>>> >>>> The first issue is a bit more difficult. Especially if the authors >>>> are from the academic community, >>> >>> I'd classify that as "professional" community; industry has similar >> internal >>> policies to those publicized at universities, FWIW. >>> >>>> there is an expectation that if a >>>> paper has content from an individual, that individual gets listed as >>>> an author. One thing that we seem to be forgetting in this thread is >>>> "the list of people listed on the first page of an RFC" is NOT >>>> NECESSARILY the list of authors. >>> >>> The authors list is that, except where noted explicitly otherwise - >> e.g., with >>> the note "(Editor)" or abbreviation thereof. >>> >>> RFCs haven't redefined that concept. >>> >>>> It is often one or more editors, >>>> collecting the wisdom of a work group. Which individual gets their >>>> stamp on which sentence in the RFC? Likewise, what if there really >>>> are 15 authors? We regularly move the list inside the document and >>>> only list the document editor(s) on the first page. >>> >>> That's done with books as well - e.g., where a book is a series of >> chapters, >>> each written by different authors, and the whole set edited by the named >>> editor. >>> >>>> That said, it would be totally unconscionable to not at least >>>> acknowledge original authors and editors if one was producing a new >>>> document based on an old document. If one is not making substantial >>>> changes, then one would hope you would do your best to contact and >>>> involve the original authors. However, there is no requirement for >> such. >>>> Do remember, the community will treat you VERY poorly if you treat old >>>> authors poorly. >>> >>> I agree that this is the punchline. The RFC publications process needs >> to bend >>> to consider what happens when we reuse the words of others, and be more >>> flexible in allowing the corresponding author to confirm final >> decisions. I >>> don't think we should try to have the RFC publications process try to >> redefine >>> authorship or plagiarism concepts as an alternative to that. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 19, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi James, >>>>> >>>>> I asked the exact same question to my AD (Dan Romascanu) while >> working on >>>>> the RFC5101bis and RFC5102bis. I shared his answer verbatim to the >> IPFIX >>>>> mailing >>>>> Knowing that the authors list is sometimes a sensitive topic, I've >> been >>>>> seeking for advice and guidelines when publishing draft standards >> and I >>>>> received the following answer: >>>>> The most used current practice is to list on the first page only the >>>>> editors of the latest version and to start the Acknowledgments >> section by >>>>> mentioning the full list of the authors of the previous RFC and >> mention >>>>> that this work is based upon and develops the original RFC. >>>>> At least, everybody is warned in advance (or at least while working >> on the >>>>> doc.): "you are more than welcome to participate, otherwise your >> name will >>>>> be moved to the ACK section." >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Benoit >>>>> . >>>>>> Chairs >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on >>>>>> authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little >> unusual >>>>>> in several ways (at least it is for me): >>>>>> >>>>>> - it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to >>>>>> >>>>>> - increase the strength of the document (see bullet below), >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>> - assign more values within the doc that need new text to >>>>>> cover (25-40% more) >>>>>> >>>>>> - I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status as >>>>>> informational to either standards track or BCP. >>>>>> >>>>>> - I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc and >> have >>>>>> significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing >> text >>>>>> from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this >> change % >>>>>> to remain or increase. >>>>>> >>>>>> - 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a while >> (that >>>>>> I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or >> acquired)). >>>>>> >>>>>> This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view >> since the >>>>>> community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, >> and >>>>>> overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page >> vs. an >>>>>> authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section. >>>>>> >>>>>> Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be in >> a >>>>>> contributors section since this new version of the doc is based on >> work >>>>>> previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original >> text >>>>>> left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and >> add my >>>>>> name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous RFC's >>>>>> authors/editors listed in a contributor's section). >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or >> opinions how >>>>>> I should handle this? >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> From jmh@joelhalpern.com Wed Jan 25 11:39:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271BE21F85DB for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:39:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.035 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.230, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bClx0PaGON8g for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:39:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691AB21F85D2 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:39:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailb1.tigertech.net (mailb1.tigertech.net [208.80.4.153]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F38BA360E for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:39:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2211D40068; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:39:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailb1.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.101] (pool-71-161-52-140.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20672D4083E; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:38:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F205A4C.3080302@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:38:52 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "C. M. Heard" , Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:39:02 -0000 That seems to depend heavily on the working group. There are certainly groups that work that way. There are others that do not. And probably others that treat different documents differently. Along the lines that Keith is suggesting, I do think we should try to keep front-page listing as something that is done for our needs, while proper attribution and credit are handled elsewhere in the document. Yours, Joel On 1/25/2012 2:28 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > To be honest, I think that is messy, and we could easily create examples where there is insufficient room on the cover page. > > I'd far rather we changed our procedures (at least for WG documents) to get to the point where only the editor appears on the front page and we have a separate section in the document entitled authors. > > To me that is also correct for AUTH48 on a WG document. The editor is the only one responsible for ensuring what is published represents the document they edited to represent working group consensus. > > None of the authors of drafts that may have provided input to the working group document fulfil that role. > > Regards > > Keith > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of C. M. Heard >> Sent: 25 January 2012 03:55 >> To: Joe Touch >> Cc: Working Group Chairs >> Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures >> >> Perhaps RFCs 2578, 2579, and 2580 provide a good model to follow. >> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Joe Touch wrote: >>> Hi, all, >>> >>> On 1/22/2012 5:48 PM, Eric Burger wrote: >>>> [Speaking as a WG Chair, NOT as a Trustee of the IETF Trust] >>>> >>>> There are two issues here. The first is plagiarism and the second is >>>> copyright. Let me start with the second. The IETF Trust holds the >>>> copyright on most RFCs. In particular, that is to enable the IETF to >>>> create derivative works, especially when the original authors are >>>> unreachable, don't care anymore, or are dead. So, don't worry about >>>> whether a document can be updated. >>>> >>>> The first issue is a bit more difficult. Especially if the authors >>>> are from the academic community, >>> >>> I'd classify that as "professional" community; industry has similar >> internal >>> policies to those publicized at universities, FWIW. >>> >>>> there is an expectation that if a >>>> paper has content from an individual, that individual gets listed as >>>> an author. One thing that we seem to be forgetting in this thread is >>>> "the list of people listed on the first page of an RFC" is NOT >>>> NECESSARILY the list of authors. >>> >>> The authors list is that, except where noted explicitly otherwise - >> e.g., with >>> the note "(Editor)" or abbreviation thereof. >>> >>> RFCs haven't redefined that concept. >>> >>>> It is often one or more editors, >>>> collecting the wisdom of a work group. Which individual gets their >>>> stamp on which sentence in the RFC? Likewise, what if there really >>>> are 15 authors? We regularly move the list inside the document and >>>> only list the document editor(s) on the first page. >>> >>> That's done with books as well - e.g., where a book is a series of >> chapters, >>> each written by different authors, and the whole set edited by the named >>> editor. >>> >>>> That said, it would be totally unconscionable to not at least >>>> acknowledge original authors and editors if one was producing a new >>>> document based on an old document. If one is not making substantial >>>> changes, then one would hope you would do your best to contact and >>>> involve the original authors. However, there is no requirement for >> such. >>>> Do remember, the community will treat you VERY poorly if you treat old >>>> authors poorly. >>> >>> I agree that this is the punchline. The RFC publications process needs >> to bend >>> to consider what happens when we reuse the words of others, and be more >>> flexible in allowing the corresponding author to confirm final >> decisions. I >>> don't think we should try to have the RFC publications process try to >> redefine >>> authorship or plagiarism concepts as an alternative to that. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 19, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi James, >>>>> >>>>> I asked the exact same question to my AD (Dan Romascanu) while >> working on >>>>> the RFC5101bis and RFC5102bis. I shared his answer verbatim to the >> IPFIX >>>>> mailing >>>>> Knowing that the authors list is sometimes a sensitive topic, I've >> been >>>>> seeking for advice and guidelines when publishing draft standards >> and I >>>>> received the following answer: >>>>> The most used current practice is to list on the first page only the >>>>> editors of the latest version and to start the Acknowledgments >> section by >>>>> mentioning the full list of the authors of the previous RFC and >> mention >>>>> that this work is based upon and develops the original RFC. >>>>> At least, everybody is warned in advance (or at least while working >> on the >>>>> doc.): "you are more than welcome to participate, otherwise your >> name will >>>>> be moved to the ACK section." >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Benoit >>>>> . >>>>>> Chairs >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm presently unable to find or determine the IETF procedures on >>>>>> authoring/editing a -bis- of an existing RFC. This is a little >> unusual >>>>>> in several ways (at least it is for me): >>>>>> >>>>>> - it's a 50+ page RFC now, but am doing this to >>>>>> >>>>>> - increase the strength of the document (see bullet below), >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>> - assign more values within the doc that need new text to >>>>>> cover (25-40% more) >>>>>> >>>>>> - I plan to move this ID through a WG and change its old status as >>>>>> informational to either standards track or BCP. >>>>>> >>>>>> - I've found that I've edited roughly the first 3rd of the doc and >> have >>>>>> significantly changed or completely replaced ~90% of the existing >> text >>>>>> from the RFC. As I more further through the doc, I expect this >> change % >>>>>> to remain or increase. >>>>>> >>>>>> - 2 of the 3 authors haven't been involved in the IETF for a while >> (that >>>>>> I know of, and their company is no more (i.e., not bought or >> acquired)). >>>>>> >>>>>> This seems appropriate to discuss from a timing point of view >> since the >>>>>> community just discussed the "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, >> and >>>>>> overload" thread about who's names get listed on the first page >> vs. an >>>>>> authors contributors section vs. an acknowledgements section. >>>>>> >>>>>> Clearly to me the authors/editors of the existing RFC should be in >> a >>>>>> contributors section since this new version of the doc is based on >> work >>>>>> previously RFC'd. Yet there is/will be so little of the original >> text >>>>>> left that I don't know if its best to just make this a bis, and >> add my >>>>>> name to it vs. list my name as editor and have the previous RFC's >>>>>> authors/editors listed in a contributor's section). >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone have any pointers to where this might be covered or >> opinions how >>>>>> I should handle this? >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Wed Jan 25 11:43:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C4421F85F0 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:43:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.232 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.232 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rLmxJRUbjMSI for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:43:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38AE421F85EE for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:43:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CE1E20424; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:43:54 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0vwo8SoU2Chx; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:43:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC9720222; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:43:53 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 08D2C1CBAB06; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:43:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:43:35 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Message-ID: <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" , "C. M. Heard" , Joe Touch , Working Group Chairs References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "C. M. Heard" , Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:43:56 -0000 On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:28:11PM +0100, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > To be honest, I think that is messy, and we could easily create examples where there is insufficient room on the cover page. > > I'd far rather we changed our procedures (at least for WG documents) to get to the point where only the editor appears on the front page and we have a separate section in the document entitled authors. > > To me that is also correct for AUTH48 on a WG document. The editor is the only one responsible for ensuring what is published represents the document they edited to represent working group consensus. In the academic work, citations matter and indexing engines happen to use the names appearing in references in order to do the statistics. While the contributors section (or a new authors section) of an RFC is in principle a nice idea, it fails to work (at least) for academics since nobody cites an RFC with names hidden someone in the document - only the names on the front page realistically appear in citations. (This is I think also true for the author statistics on the IETF's tools pages.) Hence, if someone authors RFC XYZ which later gets revised and the name of the original author is moved to a contributors section, the author looses. I think the answer really is procedural, that is, when an RFC is being revised, a serious attempt should be made to contact the original authors and to involve them. If they declare no interest or simply disappeared, then their names can be moved to a contributors section. And I am in favour of being flexible with the limit of the number of names on the front page in case a revision causes to add an editor exceeding the normal limit. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com Wed Jan 25 11:52:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7267921F854F for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:52:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.106 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rkdMcEDfql6H for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:52:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D5121F853C for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:52:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q0PJqAYI021755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:52:12 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:52:10 +0100 From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:52:09 +0100 Subject: RE: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Thread-Topic: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Thread-Index: AczbmbKIwpAKJ1DOSo6imMpxw52GpwAADDiQ Message-ID: References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.13 Cc: "C. M. Heard" , Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:52:15 -0000 There is no +1 name here for revisions. BFCP is an original RFC with 3 authors. The kickoff of a revision is a author draft differences document with a num= ber of authors none of whom fall in the first set. The working group has appointed an editor (who happens to fall into the gro= up of authors of the author document. Quite frequently any procedure like this ends up doubling the number on the= front cover. And what about the chairs, reviewers and proto shepherds (and area director= s) who quite frequently end up contributing more material to a poorly writt= en document than some of the people named as authors. Quite frankly, the editor appointed by the working group chair is the one t= hat matters. The authors of the original author draft(s) and any replaced R= FCs need appropriate acknowledgement elsewhere.=20 Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] > Sent: 25 January 2012 19:44 > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Cc: C. M. Heard; Joe Touch; Working Group Chairs > Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures >=20 > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:28:11PM +0100, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > > To be honest, I think that is messy, and we could easily create example= s > where there is insufficient room on the cover page. > > > > I'd far rather we changed our procedures (at least for WG documents) to > get to the point where only the editor appears on the front page and we > have a separate section in the document entitled authors. > > > > To me that is also correct for AUTH48 on a WG document. The editor is > the only one responsible for ensuring what is published represents the > document they edited to represent working group consensus. >=20 > In the academic work, citations matter and indexing engines happen to > use the names appearing in references in order to do the statistics. > While the contributors section (or a new authors section) of an RFC is > in principle a nice idea, it fails to work (at least) for academics > since nobody cites an RFC with names hidden someone in the document - > only the names on the front page realistically appear in citations. > (This is I think also true for the author statistics on the IETF's > tools pages.) Hence, if someone authors RFC XYZ which later gets > revised and the name of the original author is moved to a contributors > section, the author looses. >=20 > I think the answer really is procedural, that is, when an RFC is being > revised, a serious attempt should be made to contact the original > authors and to involve them. If they declare no interest or simply > disappeared, then their names can be moved to a contributors section. > And I am in favour of being flexible with the limit of the number of > names on the front page in case a revision causes to add an editor > exceeding the normal limit. >=20 > /js >=20 > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From touch@isi.edu Wed Jan 25 11:58:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14B821F8598 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:58:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.128 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.128 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.471, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZVakxZY6Z1Ur for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:58:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DB121F8577 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:58:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0PJvJOJ002835 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:57:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F205E9F.2090305@isi.edu> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:57:19 -0800 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: "C. M. Heard" , Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:58:02 -0000 The difference between those who contribute ideas or negligible amounts of text and authors is fairly well known in publishing, as is the concept of an editor. The IETF should not try to redefine these distinctions. I agree with Juergen; true authors MUST be listed as authors of the doc. That means they need to show up in the list of authors wherever the doc is listed. In RFCs, this happens only for names on the top right of the first page. As a result, this is where authors' names MUST appear. Joe On 1/25/2012 11:52 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > There is no +1 name here for revisions. > > BFCP is an original RFC with 3 authors. > > The kickoff of a revision is a author draft differences document with a number of authors none of whom fall in the first set. > > The working group has appointed an editor (who happens to fall into the group of authors of the author document. > > Quite frequently any procedure like this ends up doubling the number on the front cover. > > And what about the chairs, reviewers and proto shepherds (and area directors) who quite frequently end up contributing more material to a poorly written document than some of the people named as authors. > > Quite frankly, the editor appointed by the working group chair is the one that matters. The authors of the original author draft(s) and any replaced RFCs need appropriate acknowledgement elsewhere. > > Keith > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] >> Sent: 25 January 2012 19:44 >> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) >> Cc: C. M. Heard; Joe Touch; Working Group Chairs >> Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures >> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:28:11PM +0100, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: >>> To be honest, I think that is messy, and we could easily create examples >> where there is insufficient room on the cover page. >>> >>> I'd far rather we changed our procedures (at least for WG documents) to >> get to the point where only the editor appears on the front page and we >> have a separate section in the document entitled authors. >>> >>> To me that is also correct for AUTH48 on a WG document. The editor is >> the only one responsible for ensuring what is published represents the >> document they edited to represent working group consensus. >> >> In the academic work, citations matter and indexing engines happen to >> use the names appearing in references in order to do the statistics. >> While the contributors section (or a new authors section) of an RFC is >> in principle a nice idea, it fails to work (at least) for academics >> since nobody cites an RFC with names hidden someone in the document - >> only the names on the front page realistically appear in citations. >> (This is I think also true for the author statistics on the IETF's >> tools pages.) Hence, if someone authors RFC XYZ which later gets >> revised and the name of the original author is moved to a contributors >> section, the author looses. >> >> I think the answer really is procedural, that is, when an RFC is being >> revised, a serious attempt should be made to contact the original >> authors and to involve them. If they declare no interest or simply >> disappeared, then their names can be moved to a contributors section. >> And I am in favour of being flexible with the limit of the number of >> names on the front page in case a revision causes to add an editor >> exceeding the normal limit. >> >> /js >> >> -- >> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH >> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany >> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From jmh@joelhalpern.com Wed Jan 25 12:16:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0792A21F84F5 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:16:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.226, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZsITMckhIaV7 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:16:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3BD21F84EF for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:16:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ECB6A63B4 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:15:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287CD1BD5C04; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:15:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.101] (pool-71-161-52-140.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DBFF21BD5BFE; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:15:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F2062F2.8000203@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:15:46 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Touch Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <4F205E9F.2090305@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <4F205E9F.2090305@isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "C. M. Heard" , Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:16:04 -0000 I will point out that many other standards bodies take exactly the opposite view. They refuse to allow ANY names to appear as author or editor of the document. As with the IETF, the standards body owns the document. They insist on describing it that way. So while I understand the point about academic publication, other bodies (IEEE, ITU, ISO, ...) have not felt constrained int his fashion with regard to standards. Yours, Joel On 1/25/2012 2:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > The difference between those who contribute ideas or negligible amounts > of text and authors is fairly well known in publishing, as is the > concept of an editor. > > The IETF should not try to redefine these distinctions. > > I agree with Juergen; true authors MUST be listed as authors of the doc. > That means they need to show up in the list of authors wherever the doc > is listed. In RFCs, this happens only for names on the top right of the > first page. As a result, this is where authors' names MUST appear. > > Joe > > > On 1/25/2012 11:52 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: >> There is no +1 name here for revisions. >> >> BFCP is an original RFC with 3 authors. >> >> The kickoff of a revision is a author draft differences document with >> a number of authors none of whom fall in the first set. >> >> The working group has appointed an editor (who happens to fall into >> the group of authors of the author document. >> >> Quite frequently any procedure like this ends up doubling the number >> on the front cover. >> >> And what about the chairs, reviewers and proto shepherds (and area >> directors) who quite frequently end up contributing more material to a >> poorly written document than some of the people named as authors. >> >> Quite frankly, the editor appointed by the working group chair is the >> one that matters. The authors of the original author draft(s) and any >> replaced RFCs need appropriate acknowledgement elsewhere. >> >> Keith >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] >>> Sent: 25 January 2012 19:44 >>> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) >>> Cc: C. M. Heard; Joe Touch; Working Group Chairs >>> Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:28:11PM +0100, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: >>>> To be honest, I think that is messy, and we could easily create >>>> examples >>> where there is insufficient room on the cover page. >>>> >>>> I'd far rather we changed our procedures (at least for WG documents) to >>> get to the point where only the editor appears on the front page and we >>> have a separate section in the document entitled authors. >>>> >>>> To me that is also correct for AUTH48 on a WG document. The editor is >>> the only one responsible for ensuring what is published represents the >>> document they edited to represent working group consensus. >>> >>> In the academic work, citations matter and indexing engines happen to >>> use the names appearing in references in order to do the statistics. >>> While the contributors section (or a new authors section) of an RFC is >>> in principle a nice idea, it fails to work (at least) for academics >>> since nobody cites an RFC with names hidden someone in the document - >>> only the names on the front page realistically appear in citations. >>> (This is I think also true for the author statistics on the IETF's >>> tools pages.) Hence, if someone authors RFC XYZ which later gets >>> revised and the name of the original author is moved to a contributors >>> section, the author looses. >>> >>> I think the answer really is procedural, that is, when an RFC is being >>> revised, a serious attempt should be made to contact the original >>> authors and to involve them. If they declare no interest or simply >>> disappeared, then their names can be moved to a contributors section. >>> And I am in favour of being flexible with the limit of the number of >>> names on the front page in case a revision causes to add an editor >>> exceeding the normal limit. >>> >>> /js >>> >>> -- >>> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH >>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany >>> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > From touch@isi.edu Wed Jan 25 12:24:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C822711E808F for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:24:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.226 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.373, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ckoNpIRUF3sl for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:24:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 025A111E8087 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:24:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0PKNwqX008251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:23:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F2064DE.1010406@isi.edu> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:23:58 -0800 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <4F205E9F.2090305@isi.edu> <4F2062F2.8000203@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <4F2062F2.8000203@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: "C. M. Heard" , Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:24:20 -0000 On 1/25/2012 12:15 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I will point out that many other standards bodies take exactly the > opposite view. They refuse to allow ANY names to appear as author or > editor of the document. As with the IETF, the standards body owns the > document. They insist on describing it that way. > > So while I understand the point about academic publication, other bodies > (IEEE, ITU, ISO, ...) have not felt constrained int his fashion with > regard to standards. These other organizations also: - count votes - require membership to vote - charge for access to their standards - do not all publish their standards with ISSNs We could get rid of authorship altogether, but until we do, we need to deal with it properly. Joe > On 1/25/2012 2:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote: >> The difference between those who contribute ideas or negligible amounts >> of text and authors is fairly well known in publishing, as is the >> concept of an editor. >> >> The IETF should not try to redefine these distinctions. >> >> I agree with Juergen; true authors MUST be listed as authors of the doc. >> That means they need to show up in the list of authors wherever the doc >> is listed. In RFCs, this happens only for names on the top right of the >> first page. As a result, this is where authors' names MUST appear. >> >> Joe >> >> >> On 1/25/2012 11:52 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: >>> There is no +1 name here for revisions. >>> >>> BFCP is an original RFC with 3 authors. >>> >>> The kickoff of a revision is a author draft differences document with >>> a number of authors none of whom fall in the first set. >>> >>> The working group has appointed an editor (who happens to fall into >>> the group of authors of the author document. >>> >>> Quite frequently any procedure like this ends up doubling the number >>> on the front cover. >>> >>> And what about the chairs, reviewers and proto shepherds (and area >>> directors) who quite frequently end up contributing more material to a >>> poorly written document than some of the people named as authors. >>> >>> Quite frankly, the editor appointed by the working group chair is the >>> one that matters. The authors of the original author draft(s) and any >>> replaced RFCs need appropriate acknowledgement elsewhere. >>> >>> Keith >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder >>>> [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] >>>> Sent: 25 January 2012 19:44 >>>> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) >>>> Cc: C. M. Heard; Joe Touch; Working Group Chairs >>>> Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:28:11PM +0100, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: >>>>> To be honest, I think that is messy, and we could easily create >>>>> examples >>>> where there is insufficient room on the cover page. >>>>> >>>>> I'd far rather we changed our procedures (at least for WG >>>>> documents) to >>>> get to the point where only the editor appears on the front page and we >>>> have a separate section in the document entitled authors. >>>>> >>>>> To me that is also correct for AUTH48 on a WG document. The editor is >>>> the only one responsible for ensuring what is published represents the >>>> document they edited to represent working group consensus. >>>> >>>> In the academic work, citations matter and indexing engines happen to >>>> use the names appearing in references in order to do the statistics. >>>> While the contributors section (or a new authors section) of an RFC is >>>> in principle a nice idea, it fails to work (at least) for academics >>>> since nobody cites an RFC with names hidden someone in the document - >>>> only the names on the front page realistically appear in citations. >>>> (This is I think also true for the author statistics on the IETF's >>>> tools pages.) Hence, if someone authors RFC XYZ which later gets >>>> revised and the name of the original author is moved to a contributors >>>> section, the author looses. >>>> >>>> I think the answer really is procedural, that is, when an RFC is being >>>> revised, a serious attempt should be made to contact the original >>>> authors and to involve them. If they declare no interest or simply >>>> disappeared, then their names can be moved to a contributors section. >>>> And I am in favour of being flexible with the limit of the number of >>>> names on the front page in case a revision causes to add an editor >>>> exceeding the normal limit. >>>> >>>> /js >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH >>>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany >>>> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 >> From d3e3e3@gmail.com Wed Jan 25 12:48:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8355621F857A for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:48:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.271 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.271 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.672, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e9CEkajWEZXg for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:48:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F6921F8577 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:48:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by lahl5 with SMTP id l5so1535215lah.31 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:48:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5s4LG3iRZvnVv0u3dhG9eqvgLb7Ewt5p2b8NzpgghUg=; b=Ldv2+LncnDTAhDWLwpoDGgmD3MhA2xn3t7MWFm+4O2SQqP+Tw3PXrIu0ya0qWSdfKl oTfnDq919KkcCEDGucvK5yLaq44f/ERZoU6rGCb2yhSpTAGxviHXZveUJ7nq57MudyfB ZNzQXxjqvMiG7hP8poydzko9h4z8qX5R8IJyQ= Received: by 10.112.48.193 with SMTP id o1mr4861742lbn.1.1327524527355; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:48:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.100.131 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:48:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:48:26 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures To: Working Group Chairs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:48:49 -0000 Hi, On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:28:11PM +0100, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: >> To be honest, I think that is messy, and we could easily create examples= where there is insufficient room on the cover page. >> >> I'd far rather we changed our procedures (at least for WG documents) to = get to the point where only the editor appears on the front page and we hav= e a separate section in the document entitled authors. >> >> To me that is also correct for AUTH48 on a WG document. The editor is th= e only one responsible for ensuring what is published represents the docume= nt they edited to represent working group consensus. > > In the academic work, citations matter and indexing engines happen to > use the names appearing in references in order to do the statistics. > While the contributors section (or a new authors section) of an RFC is > in principle a nice idea, it fails to work (at least) for academics > since nobody cites an RFC with names hidden someone in the document - > only the names on the front page realistically appear in citations. > .... The IETF is not an academic organization. It is an engineering organization. Perhaps our RFC policies discourage some purely academic contributions, I have no problem with that. Thanks, Donald =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D =A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd=A0=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell) =A0155 Beaver Street,=A0Milford, MA 01757 USA =A0d3e3e3@gmail.com > ... > > /js > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germ= any > Fax: =A0 +49 421 200 3103 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Wed Jan 25 13:28:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B4D21F859E for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:28:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.232 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.232 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TlRLjW9yTvFC for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:28:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246D721F8507 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:28:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7789C20BD4; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:28:01 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mPjbfLwDoVfa; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:28:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123A420B6C; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:28:01 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4DBF91CBADE5; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:27:44 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:27:44 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Donald Eastlake Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Message-ID: <20120125212744.GB63191@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Donald Eastlake , Working Group Chairs References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:28:03 -0000 On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:48:26PM -0500, Donald Eastlake wrote: > The IETF is not an academic organization. It is an engineering > organization. Perhaps our RFC policies discourage some purely academic > contributions, I have no problem with that. While I think I understand what the IETF is, it is not clear to me what you name a "purely academic contribution". I happen to have authored/edited a number of standards track documents with an academic affiliation and for people like me, it matters to be listed once in a while on a front page. If the IETF were to drop acknowledging individuals who write / edit documents, the number of people active in the IETF and working at academic institutions will surely drop. (And frankly, I assume this is not only limited to people working at academic institutions - I am pretty sure some big companies are also pretty proud of some of their frequent RFC authors/editors.) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From jhutz@cmu.edu Wed Jan 25 14:21:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6ACF11E80A6 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:21:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0AkXkTwbipnU for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:21:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp02.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP02.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.197]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C624B11E8098 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:21:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.2.193.239] (minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu [128.2.193.239]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp02.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q0PMLIea009897 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:21:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures From: Jeffrey Hutzelman To: Donald Eastlake In-Reply-To: <14032_1327524532_q0PKmpMJ010279_CAF4+nEH-a6hXmHuN634VG5ynMqaBmD5CS38hzd0QynMkFCfeDQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <14032_1327524532_q0PKmpMJ010279_CAF4+nEH-a6hXmHuN634VG5ynMqaBmD5CS38hzd0QynMkFCfeDQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:21:18 -0500 Message-ID: <1327530078.2185.378.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.197 Cc: Working Group Chairs , jhutz@cmu.edu X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:21:23 -0000 On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 15:48 -0500, Donald Eastlake wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:28:11PM +0100, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > >> To be honest, I think that is messy, and we could easily create examples where there is insufficient room on the cover page. > >> > >> I'd far rather we changed our procedures (at least for WG documents) to get to the point where only the editor appears on the front page and we have a separate section in the document entitled authors. > >> > >> To me that is also correct for AUTH48 on a WG document. The editor is the only one responsible for ensuring what is published represents the document they edited to represent working group consensus. > > > > In the academic work, citations matter and indexing engines happen to > > use the names appearing in references in order to do the statistics. > > While the contributors section (or a new authors section) of an RFC is > > in principle a nice idea, it fails to work (at least) for academics > > since nobody cites an RFC with names hidden someone in the document - > > only the names on the front page realistically appear in citations. > > .... > > The IETF is not an academic organization. It is an engineering > organization. Perhaps our RFC policies discourage some purely academic > contributions, I have no problem with that. Thank you; I've been meaning to point that out. RFCs are _not_ academic papers, and at least when I first became involved in the IETF, this was made abundantly clear, as was the fact that being listed on the front page was reserved for those actually responsible for production of that document, and not for people who felt they deserved the form of credit that academic authorship implies. I don't know what they teach these days, but when I grew up, plagiarism meant using others' work without acknowledgement, not using others' work without listing them as a co-author. Yes, it is right and proper to acknowledge the work of everyone who contributed to a document, and to accurately represent the extent of contribution. No, listing each person's name on the front page is not the only way to do that. In the meantime, Juergen has brought up an important point, which is that some tools computing citation statistics may fail to acknowledge the contributions of a person whose name is not listed as an "author" in the bibliographic reference to an RFC. That is a shortcoming of those tools, not a moral failure on the part of the IETF or its processes. We may wish to discuss _changing_ our process to make the lives of such tools easier, or to provide what appears to be more prestigious credit to major contributors (or to permit doing so without gumming up AUTH48), or to be more compatible with the expectations of those who think that RFCs are academic papers. However, (1) a desire to do one of those things does not mean the current process is wrong, and (2) such a discussion belongs in some other forum, not on wgchairs. Finally, as to the original question, which was about an RFC author who revises an existing document and, in the process, places his own name on the front page and moves the names of the previous authors/editors who are no longer involved to an appropriate acknowledgement section. That action is not only permitted but very nearly required under our current process. It is also IMHO entirely reasonable and ethical, provided that the nature of the acknowledgement does not misrepresent the extent of the previous authors' contributions. -- Jeff From linda.dunbar@huawei.com Wed Jan 25 14:51:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A82021F8593 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:51:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m59BtT1RClxz for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:51:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C95821F858E for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:51:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id ACQ44349; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:51:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:49:24 -0800 Received: from DFWEML505-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.100]) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.151]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:49:20 -0800 From: Linda Dunbar To: "Joel M. Halpern" , Joe Touch Subject: RE: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Thread-Topic: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Thread-Index: AQHM1j5DJg8vxpm+q0+QfB00OdcaYZYT9cEAgAXGCwCAAqohAIAAne0AgAEEuICAAAROgIAAAmSAgAABcoCAAAUnAP//ox1g Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:49:20 +0000 Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F632E17741@dfweml505-mbx> References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <4F205E9F.2090305@isi.edu> <4F2062F2.8000203@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <4F2062F2.8000203@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.97] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:00:11 -0800 Cc: "C. M. Heard" , Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:51:22 -0000 Agree with Joel. IEEE802-std doesn't list editors, instead, it list all the= contributing members when the standard was in discussion.=20 They do give editor a nice plaque showing appreciation of contribution to I= EEE802 once the project is finished and merged into IEEE802-std.=20 Linda=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 2:16 PM > To: Joe Touch > Cc: C. M. Heard; Working Group Chairs > Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures >=20 > I will point out that many other standards bodies take exactly the > opposite view. They refuse to allow ANY names to appear as author or > editor of the document. As with the IETF, the standards body owns the > document. They insist on describing it that way. >=20 > So while I understand the point about academic publication, other > bodies > (IEEE, ITU, ISO, ...) have not felt constrained int his fashion with > regard to standards. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 1/25/2012 2:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > The difference between those who contribute ideas or negligible > amounts > > of text and authors is fairly well known in publishing, as is the > > concept of an editor. > > > > The IETF should not try to redefine these distinctions. > > > > I agree with Juergen; true authors MUST be listed as authors of the > doc. > > That means they need to show up in the list of authors wherever the > doc > > is listed. In RFCs, this happens only for names on the top right of > the > > first page. As a result, this is where authors' names MUST appear. > > > > Joe > > > > > > On 1/25/2012 11:52 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > >> There is no +1 name here for revisions. > >> > >> BFCP is an original RFC with 3 authors. > >> > >> The kickoff of a revision is a author draft differences document > with > >> a number of authors none of whom fall in the first set. > >> > >> The working group has appointed an editor (who happens to fall into > >> the group of authors of the author document. > >> > >> Quite frequently any procedure like this ends up doubling the number > >> on the front cover. > >> > >> And what about the chairs, reviewers and proto shepherds (and area > >> directors) who quite frequently end up contributing more material to > a > >> poorly written document than some of the people named as authors. > >> > >> Quite frankly, the editor appointed by the working group chair is > the > >> one that matters. The authors of the original author draft(s) and > any > >> replaced RFCs need appropriate acknowledgement elsewhere. > >> > >> Keith > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > >>> [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] > >>> Sent: 25 January 2012 19:44 > >>> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > >>> Cc: C. M. Heard; Joe Touch; Working Group Chairs > >>> Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:28:11PM +0100, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > wrote: > >>>> To be honest, I think that is messy, and we could easily create > >>>> examples > >>> where there is insufficient room on the cover page. > >>>> > >>>> I'd far rather we changed our procedures (at least for WG > documents) to > >>> get to the point where only the editor appears on the front page > and we > >>> have a separate section in the document entitled authors. > >>>> > >>>> To me that is also correct for AUTH48 on a WG document. The editor > is > >>> the only one responsible for ensuring what is published represents > the > >>> document they edited to represent working group consensus. > >>> > >>> In the academic work, citations matter and indexing engines happen > to > >>> use the names appearing in references in order to do the statistics. > >>> While the contributors section (or a new authors section) of an RFC > is > >>> in principle a nice idea, it fails to work (at least) for academics > >>> since nobody cites an RFC with names hidden someone in the document > - > >>> only the names on the front page realistically appear in citations. > >>> (This is I think also true for the author statistics on the IETF's > >>> tools pages.) Hence, if someone authors RFC XYZ which later gets > >>> revised and the name of the original author is moved to a > contributors > >>> section, the author looses. > >>> > >>> I think the answer really is procedural, that is, when an RFC is > being > >>> revised, a serious attempt should be made to contact the original > >>> authors and to involve them. If they declare no interest or simply > >>> disappeared, then their names can be moved to a contributors > section. > >>> And I am in favour of being flexible with the limit of the number > of > >>> names on the front page in case a revision causes to add an editor > >>> exceeding the normal limit. > >>> > >>> /js > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > >>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > >>> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > > From bclaise@cisco.com Wed Jan 25 15:21:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF3C11E80E4 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:21:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.385 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.385 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zMNuWUrEjLL2 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:21:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03F311E80DE for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:21:31 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0PNLSsO028009; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:21:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.60.67.84] (ams-bclaise-8913.cisco.com [10.60.67.84]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0PNLPXi023104; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:21:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F208E75.8050605@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:21:25 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" , "C. M. Heard" , Joe Touch , Working Group Chairs Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:21:32 -0000 On 25/01/2012 20:43, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:28:11PM +0100, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: >> To be honest, I think that is messy, and we could easily create examples where there is insufficient room on the cover page. >> >> I'd far rather we changed our procedures (at least for WG documents) to get to the point where only the editor appears on the front page and we have a separate section in the document entitled authors. >> >> To me that is also correct for AUTH48 on a WG document. The editor is the only one responsible for ensuring what is published represents the document they edited to represent working group consensus. > In the academic work, citations matter and indexing engines happen to > use the names appearing in references in order to do the statistics. > While the contributors section (or a new authors section) of an RFC is > in principle a nice idea, it fails to work (at least) for academics > since nobody cites an RFC with names hidden someone in the document - > only the names on the front page realistically appear in citations. > (This is I think also true for the author statistics on the IETF's > tools pages.) Hence, if someone authors RFC XYZ which later gets > revised and the name of the original author is moved to a contributors > section, the author looses. > > I think the answer really is procedural, that is, when an RFC is being > revised, a serious attempt should be made to contact the original > authors and to involve them. Exactly! Note "involvement" = "contributing to the new text" > If they declare no interest or simply > disappeared, then their names can be moved to a contributors section. Contributors or Acknowledgment? Regards, Benoit. > And I am in favour of being flexible with the limit of the number of > names on the front page in case a revision causes to add an editor > exceeding the normal limit. > > /js > From touch@isi.edu Wed Jan 25 17:42:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FDC5E8003 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:42:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.312 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.288, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bjNv2gQsoh-q for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:42:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F415E8002 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:42:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0Q1geV6028964 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:42:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F20AF90.8010207@isi.edu> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:42:40 -0800 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeffrey Hutzelman Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <14032_1327524532_q0PKmpMJ010279_CAF4+nEH-a6hXmHuN634VG5ynMqaBmD5CS38hzd0QynMkFCfeDQ@mail.gmail.com> <1327530078.2185.378.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <1327530078.2185.378.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: Donald Eastlake , Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:42:57 -0000 As someone who has helped handle plagiarism issues in the ACM and IEEE, let me assure you that these are NOT merely "academic" issues. Neither the ACM nor the IEEE are academic organizations, and the IEEE in particular also produces standards. On 1/25/2012 2:21 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: ... > I don't know what they teach these days, but when I grew up, plagiarism > meant using others' work without acknowledgement, and clear delineation. > not using others' work > without listing them as a co-author. Listing someone as co-author avoids the need to delineate their contributions. So there are two options that work just fine, and are well-established: - clearly indicate full sentences that are not trivial (i.e., "The Internet has been growing over the years.") This can be done in quotes ("") or by indenting (as this sentence is). - include the contributor of *verbatim* original text as co-author Copyright addresses how long these verbatim passages can be without permission, but that's not an issue for RFC revisions (if sufficiently recent at least). But copyright doesn't cover the issue of plagiarism. > Yes, it is right and proper to > acknowledge the work of everyone who contributed to a document, and to > accurately represent the extent of contribution. No, listing each > person's name on the front page is not the only way to do that. It is when plagiarism is the issue, and verbatim text is the issue. There is a bit of a 'slippery slope' vagueness as to how many such sentences need to occur, of course (single sentences or even two not so much; two pages definitely, and some debate where the boundary between lies). > In the meantime, Juergen has brought up an important point, which is > that some tools computing citation statistics may fail to acknowledge > the contributions of a person whose name is not listed as an "author" in > the bibliographic reference to an RFC. That is a shortcoming of those > tools, not a moral failure on the part of the IETF or its processes. It is a shortcoming of the IETF to not clearly indicate authorship. Obscuring authorship is the IETF's fault, not that of a tool. If the IETF wants to list authors at the end of the doc, that's fine - but when it provides a list with authors' names then they need to be included in that entry. Right now the only names that appear as authors in IETF summaries, XML, or other IETF-provided material are those indicated on the first page. It is not the job of a tool to 'figure out' when this is being obscured. Arbitrary rules of the IETF, like limits to the number of authors explicitly indicated this way, or involving all authors in AUTH48 are IETF failures. How this is all handled definitely affects WG chairs, as it ends up being implemented by them in how they manage these issues in their WGs; if this general topic should be taken, e.g., to rfc-interest (where some process issues are discussed), that's fine too. Joe From jmh@joelhalpern.com Wed Jan 25 18:22:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E81021F8574 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:22:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.042 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.223, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f3IV9smoNES9 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:22:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03DA121F857D for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:22:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04FFCD100 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:22:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4791C02772; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:21:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.101] (pool-71-161-52-140.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC2851C0276E; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:21:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F20B8BC.5070101@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:21:48 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Touch , Working Group Chairs Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <14032_1327524532_q0PKmpMJ010279_CAF4+nEH-a6hXmHuN634VG5ynMqaBmD5CS38hzd0QynMkFCfeDQ@mail.gmail.com> <1327530078.2185.378.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <4F20AF90.8010207@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <4F20AF90.8010207@isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:22:02 -0000 I am trying to figure out what I am missing in your description. Firstly, you seem to be asking for a change in IETF policy. If so, then that needs a different audience than this, as has been observed. Secondaly, as far as I can tell from your wording, the standards arm of IEEE, ITU, etc are committing plagiarism by not listing the authors of the words they are using. I doubt that is what you intend. Assuming that you ahve no problem with the IEEE policy, would you have a problem with a policy whcih said that the only front page listing on new RFCs should be the pen-holding editor, who be listed as editor, not author? And all writers would be credited in the body of the document? Yours, Joel On 1/25/2012 8:42 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > As someone who has helped handle plagiarism issues in the ACM and IEEE, > let me assure you that these are NOT merely "academic" issues. Neither > the ACM nor the IEEE are academic organizations, and the IEEE in > particular also produces standards. > > On 1/25/2012 2:21 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > ... >> I don't know what they teach these days, but when I grew up, plagiarism >> meant using others' work without acknowledgement, > > and clear delineation. > >> not using others' work >> without listing them as a co-author. > > Listing someone as co-author avoids the need to delineate their > contributions. > > So there are two options that work just fine, and are well-established: > > - clearly indicate full sentences that are not trivial (i.e., "The > Internet has been growing over the years.") > > This can be done in quotes ("") or by indenting (as this > sentence is). > > - include the contributor of *verbatim* original text as co-author > > Copyright addresses how long these verbatim passages can be without > permission, but that's not an issue for RFC revisions (if sufficiently > recent at least). But copyright doesn't cover the issue of plagiarism. > >> Yes, it is right and proper to >> acknowledge the work of everyone who contributed to a document, and to >> accurately represent the extent of contribution. No, listing each >> person's name on the front page is not the only way to do that. > > It is when plagiarism is the issue, and verbatim text is the issue. > There is a bit of a 'slippery slope' vagueness as to how many such > sentences need to occur, of course (single sentences or even two not so > much; two pages definitely, and some debate where the boundary between > lies). > >> In the meantime, Juergen has brought up an important point, which is >> that some tools computing citation statistics may fail to acknowledge >> the contributions of a person whose name is not listed as an "author" in >> the bibliographic reference to an RFC. That is a shortcoming of those >> tools, not a moral failure on the part of the IETF or its processes. > > It is a shortcoming of the IETF to not clearly indicate authorship. > Obscuring authorship is the IETF's fault, not that of a tool. > > If the IETF wants to list authors at the end of the doc, that's fine - > but when it provides a list with authors' names then they need to be > included in that entry. > > Right now the only names that appear as authors in IETF summaries, XML, > or other IETF-provided material are those indicated on the first page. > It is not the job of a tool to 'figure out' when this is being obscured. > > Arbitrary rules of the IETF, like limits to the number of authors > explicitly indicated this way, or involving all authors in AUTH48 are > IETF failures. > > How this is all handled definitely affects WG chairs, as it ends up > being implemented by them in how they manage these issues in their WGs; > if this general topic should be taken, e.g., to rfc-interest (where some > process issues are discussed), that's fine too. > > Joe > > From touch@isi.edu Wed Jan 25 18:37:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED2111E8097 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:37:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.387 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.788, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lCABfQfEzjVY for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:37:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB5911E808C for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:37:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0Q2auf1010312 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:36:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F20BC48.5060100@isi.edu> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:36:56 -0800 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <14032_1327524532_q0PKmpMJ010279_CAF4+nEH-a6hXmHuN634VG5ynMqaBmD5CS38hzd0QynMkFCfeDQ@mail.gmail.com> <1327530078.2185.378.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <4F20AF90.8010207@isi.edu> <4F20B8BC.5070101@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <4F20B8BC.5070101@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:37:06 -0000 On 1/25/2012 6:21 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I am trying to figure out what I am missing in your description. > > Firstly, you seem to be asking for a change in IETF policy. If so, then > that needs a different audience than this, as has been observed. > > Secondaly, as far as I can tell from your wording, the standards arm of > IEEE, ITU, etc are committing plagiarism by not listing the authors of > the words they are using. > I doubt that is what you intend. Standards of the IEEE, ITU, etc. do not list an author who did not write the document. They don't incorrectly list an author. > Assuming that you ahve no problem with the IEEE policy, would you have a > problem with a policy whcih said that the only front page listing on new > RFCs should be the pen-holding editor, who be listed as editor, not > author? And all writers would be credited in the body of the document? There is no IEEE standards policy that list all documents by their editors and not their authors. IMO the front matter of RFCs should list editors (where there are such individuals) *and* authors (or just authors, absent editors). Relegating authors (or editors, for that matter) to the body omits them from the XML and other information which is directly exported to other tools, which obfuscates them inappropriately. Joe > On 1/25/2012 8:42 PM, Joe Touch wrote: >> As someone who has helped handle plagiarism issues in the ACM and IEEE, >> let me assure you that these are NOT merely "academic" issues. Neither >> the ACM nor the IEEE are academic organizations, and the IEEE in >> particular also produces standards. >> >> On 1/25/2012 2:21 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: >> ... >>> I don't know what they teach these days, but when I grew up, plagiarism >>> meant using others' work without acknowledgement, >> >> and clear delineation. >> >>> not using others' work >>> without listing them as a co-author. >> >> Listing someone as co-author avoids the need to delineate their >> contributions. >> >> So there are two options that work just fine, and are well-established: >> >> - clearly indicate full sentences that are not trivial (i.e., "The >> Internet has been growing over the years.") >> >> This can be done in quotes ("") or by indenting (as this >> sentence is). >> >> - include the contributor of *verbatim* original text as co-author >> >> Copyright addresses how long these verbatim passages can be without >> permission, but that's not an issue for RFC revisions (if sufficiently >> recent at least). But copyright doesn't cover the issue of plagiarism. >> >>> Yes, it is right and proper to >>> acknowledge the work of everyone who contributed to a document, and to >>> accurately represent the extent of contribution. No, listing each >>> person's name on the front page is not the only way to do that. >> >> It is when plagiarism is the issue, and verbatim text is the issue. >> There is a bit of a 'slippery slope' vagueness as to how many such >> sentences need to occur, of course (single sentences or even two not so >> much; two pages definitely, and some debate where the boundary between >> lies). >> >>> In the meantime, Juergen has brought up an important point, which is >>> that some tools computing citation statistics may fail to acknowledge >>> the contributions of a person whose name is not listed as an "author" in >>> the bibliographic reference to an RFC. That is a shortcoming of those >>> tools, not a moral failure on the part of the IETF or its processes. >> >> It is a shortcoming of the IETF to not clearly indicate authorship. >> Obscuring authorship is the IETF's fault, not that of a tool. >> >> If the IETF wants to list authors at the end of the doc, that's fine - >> but when it provides a list with authors' names then they need to be >> included in that entry. >> >> Right now the only names that appear as authors in IETF summaries, XML, >> or other IETF-provided material are those indicated on the first page. >> It is not the job of a tool to 'figure out' when this is being obscured. >> >> Arbitrary rules of the IETF, like limits to the number of authors >> explicitly indicated this way, or involving all authors in AUTH48 are >> IETF failures. >> >> How this is all handled definitely affects WG chairs, as it ends up >> being implemented by them in how they manage these issues in their WGs; >> if this general topic should be taken, e.g., to rfc-interest (where some >> process issues are discussed), that's fine too. >> >> Joe >> >> From ynir@checkpoint.com Thu Jan 26 00:22:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E6A21F851C for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:22:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.482 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cwOwhfzAW5+c for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:22:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from michael.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4EB21F8508 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:22:15 -0800 (PST) X-CheckPoint: {4F210A22-0-1B221DC2-1FFFF} Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.26]) by michael.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0Q8MDkV001319; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:22:13 +0200 Received: from il-ex03.ad.checkpoint.com (194.29.34.71) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (194.29.34.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:22:13 +0200 Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex03.ad.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.71]) with mapi; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:22:12 +0200 From: Yoav Nir To: Joe Touch Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:22:12 +0200 Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Thread-Topic: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Thread-Index: AczcA5rAgWV8UPZzQO+jrYKUa1bHyg== Message-ID: References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <14032_1327524532_q0PKmpMJ010279_CAF4+nEH-a6hXmHuN634VG5ynMqaBmD5CS38hzd0QynMkFCfeDQ@mail.gmail.com> <1327530078.2185.378.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <4F20AF90.8010207@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <4F20AF90.8010207@isi.edu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-KSE-AntiSpam-Interceptor-Info: protection disabled Cc: Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:22:17 -0000 On Jan 26, 2012, at 3:42 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > As someone who has helped handle plagiarism issues in the ACM and IEEE,=20 > let me assure you that these are NOT merely "academic" issues. Neither=20 > the ACM nor the IEEE are academic organizations, and the IEEE in=20 > particular also produces standards. >=20 > On 1/25/2012 2:21 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > ... >> I don't know what they teach these days, but when I grew up, plagiarism >> meant using others' work without acknowledgement, >=20 > and clear delineation. >=20 >> not using others' work >> without listing them as a co-author. >=20 > Listing someone as co-author avoids the need to delineate their=20 > contributions. >=20 > So there are two options that work just fine, and are well-established: >=20 > - clearly indicate full sentences that are not trivial (i.e., "The=20 > Internet has been growing over the years.") >=20 > This can be done in quotes ("") or by indenting (as this > sentence is). >=20 > - include the contributor of *verbatim* original text as co-author I've seen a lot of cases where this was done differently. Someone on the ma= iling list will post something like "Section 3.6 is not clear enough", and = the chair will reply "can you suggest some alternate text?" and then they'l= l send their own re-write of section 3.6. If this is indeed better, the edi= tor will replace the content of section 3.6 with the suggested text, and ad= d to the acknowledgement section something like "So-and-so contributed text= to this document" or if this is their only contribution, "So-and-so contri= buted the contents of section 3.6". In the first case, the text is not clearly delineated, nor is so-and-so add= ed as co-author. Are you saying that this practice is wrong? What about con= tributions that change or add a single sentence? What about remarks that "= literally" is wrong here and should be replaced with "figuratively"? Yoav= From dromasca@avaya.com Thu Jan 26 03:35:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB1C21F86AD for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:35:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.375 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.375 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.224, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q3NiHTgk0HjA for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:35:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126D021F8693 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:35:31 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAKg4IU/GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABCrkuBBYFyAQEBAQMSHgo/DAQCAQgNAQMEAQEBCgYMCwEGAUUJCAEBBAESCBqkH5tNiRgnBjUUA4JuEw6BSYJLYwSbGIxZ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,573,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="326591838" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 26 Jan 2012 06:35:30 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 26 Jan 2012 06:30:18 -0500 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:35:28 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20120125212744.GB63191@elstar.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Thread-Index: AczbqEOQ9JV6UczsRG2A7phzej6XkwAdLsUw References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com><4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com><47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com><4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu><20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <20120125212744.GB63191@elstar.local> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" , "Donald Eastlake" Cc: Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:35:31 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Juergen Schoenwaelder > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:28 PM > To: Donald Eastlake > Cc: Working Group Chairs > Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures >=20 > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:48:26PM -0500, Donald Eastlake wrote: >=20 > > The IETF is not an academic organization. It is an engineering > > organization. Perhaps our RFC policies discourage some purely > academic > > contributions, I have no problem with that. >=20 > While I think I understand what the IETF is, it is not clear to me > what you name a "purely academic contribution". I happen to have > authored/edited a number of standards track documents with an academic > affiliation and for people like me, it matters to be listed once in a > while on a front page. >=20 > If the IETF were to drop acknowledging individuals who write / edit > documents, the number of people active in the IETF and working at > academic institutions will surely drop. (And frankly, I assume this is > not only limited to people working at academic institutions - I am > pretty sure some big companies are also pretty proud of some of their > frequent RFC authors/editors.) >=20 > /js >=20 I would like to add a +1 to what Juergen says. There are very little things that the IETF can do to pay back somehow the voluntary work that the individuals invest in their active participation in the IETF, and recognizing the true editors and authors in a visible manner is one of them.=20 Dan From cabo@tzi.org Thu Jan 26 05:35:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9509221F8650 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:35:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LhWNI8eO7iTi for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:35:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9523C21F864E for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:35:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0QDYvMC008694 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:34:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.117] (p5489BC19.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.188.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8CB95; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:34:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <20120125212744.GB63191@elstar.local> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:34:59 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <20120125212744.GB63191@elstar.local> To: Working Group Chairs X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:35:06 -0000 I don't care about the arguments on what is legal (copyright etc.). They only frame the discussion (no, we don't adopt illegal policies), they don't answer the questions. And it seems we have made sure we now have all the breathing space we need, here. So back to the real issue. The RFC series (and that is what we are talking about here) has its roots in the academic community. I would (and still do) expect the minimum standards of the academic to apply. (If the IETF wants to do something different, they can go ahead and do a different publication series, but calling that one "RFCs" would be disingenious.) In the academic community, there is only one author list. So I think we can quickly drop all that discussion about "Editors" and "Kind of, like, authorshippy contribution" acknowledgement sections. You are an author or you aren't. So what does academic authorship imply? 1 -- significant contribution; 2 -- agreement, and thus (reputational) liability for errors. AUTH48 is a process to handle (2). Works great. Now what about (1). There are several problems that have made RFCs start to deviate from minimum standards here: a) the "space on the front page". The five-author rule is a rather arbitrary result that has no acceptable justification. b) the tendency to provide honorary authorships, often in an attempt to increase the weight of some feeble initiative just strong enough to make it into an RFC. Another contributor to the five-author rule. (Something that needs to be handled intelligently, but not by a random number posing as a rule.) c) the conflict between (1) and (2): Somebody who has contributed may not want to be an author in the end, may not be allowed by her company to be a figurehead for the document, may not have time to actually ensure a good result, etc. Let's focus on (c), because this is the one problem with the non-obvious answers. A) It is absolutely unacceptable to be listed as an author for a document that one does not agree with. In other words, (2) trumps (1). B) Since publication is to an end (standardization, which is really market creation), it is also unacceptable for an unwilling author of a previous incarnation to be able to slow down a new document. We have the copyright stuff in place to make it legally possible to charge ahead anyway. We also will have to calibrate our concept of plagiarism a little bit away from the academic standards in view of this reality. Which is OK as long as we say so. Given A and B, there is no way to always completely fulfill (1). So we'll have to accept that there will be cases where documents go ahead without having all main contributors in the author list. But, and this is important: Compromising on (1) is only *ever* acceptable in the face of this strong conflict. It is unacceptable to completely give up on the concept of authorship just because it cannot be realized in a conceptually clear way in all cases. In other words, (c) is no justification for not listing authors where that is actually possible. We still have a bit of wiggle room on the "significant" in (1). With hindsight, maybe RFC 3095 wouldn't need to have had 16 authors. But it sure had way more than 5. Back to the concrete case: James' original question strikes me as more of a "standing on the shoulders of" situation. E.g., copying the math really just calls for a citation of the previous document, and even re-using some good crispy key sentences just calls for lavish acknowledgement. But the really interesting case would come up if one of the authors of the previous version actually were interested in co-authoring the -bis effort. Here, I would consider it highly prudent to accommodate him (if circumstances permit), even if that gives him just a minor role. As long as (2) is still maintained! (Which excludes over-stretching the "corresponding author" principle -- I do believe AUTH48 is exactly the right way to handle (2) in an Internet age.) Gruesse, Carsten PS.: The economic argument that Dan and Juergen have been making, rephrased: The IETF has one scarce resource, which is highly qualified participation. If the IETF can incentivize that resource by granting authorships, and some of the potential contributors indeed would be benefitting from that incentive, this will improve allocation of that scarce resource. (The fact that some other contributors may not benefit is not an argument against, except maybe if the non-benefitting contributors were now drowned out by the stampede of benefitting contributors. Even with the misuse of Internet-Drafts by some funding agencies, I don't see that drowning-out happening any time soon.) From touch@isi.edu Thu Jan 26 08:33:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DAB821F869F for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:33:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WpmFlvYKDxxC for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:33:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D6F021F8694 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:33:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.151.141.184] ([207.151.141.184]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0QGWXUL017922 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:32:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F218020.4010905@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:32:32 -0800 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yoav Nir Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <14032_1327524532_q0PKmpMJ010279_CAF4+nEH-a6hXmHuN634VG5ynMqaBmD5CS38hzd0QynMkFCfeDQ@mail.gmail.com> <1327530078.2185.378.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <4F20AF90.8010207@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:33:28 -0000 Hi, Yoav, On 1/26/2012 12:22 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: > > On Jan 26, 2012, at 3:42 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > >> As someone who has helped handle plagiarism issues in the ACM and IEEE, >> let me assure you that these are NOT merely "academic" issues. Neither >> the ACM nor the IEEE are academic organizations, and the IEEE in >> particular also produces standards. >> >> On 1/25/2012 2:21 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:Hi, Y >> ... >>> I don't know what they teach these days, but when I grew up, plagiarism >>> meant using others' work without acknowledgement, >> >> and clear delineation. >> >>> not using others' work >>> without listing them as a co-author. >> >> Listing someone as co-author avoids the need to delineate their >> contributions. >> >> So there are two options that work just fine, and are well-established: >> >> - clearly indicate full sentences that are not trivial (i.e., "The >> Internet has been growing over the years.") >> >> This can be done in quotes ("") or by indenting (as this >> sentence is). >> >> - include the contributor of *verbatim* original text as co-author > > I've seen a lot of cases where this was done differently. Someone on > the mailing list will post something like "Section 3.6 is not clear > enough", and the chair will reply "can you suggest some alternate text?" > and then they'll send their own re-write of section 3.6. If this is > indeed better, the editor will replace the content of section 3.6 with > the suggested text, and add to the acknowledgement section something > like "So-and-so contributed text to this document" or if this is their > only contribution, "So-and-so contributed the contents of section 3.6". > > In the first case, the text is not clearly delineated, nor is > so-and-so added as co-author. Are you saying that this practice is > wrong? What about contributions that change or add a single sentence? I have already addressed this. A single sentence is probably OK to acknowledge at the end, or sometimes not even at all. A full section requires the person listed as author on the front page, IMO. In between, there is debate on where to draw the line. However, when you are taking the text from a previous version and you either "don't know" or are taking large portions verbatim (multiple whole paragraphs, not necessarily in a row), then IMO you need to consider this the contribution of an author who is not you. If you know who it is from the original author list, you can include just that person; if not, you need to include them all. > What about remarks that "literally" is wrong here and should be replaced > with "figuratively"? > > Yoav I didn't use those words, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Joe From ynir@checkpoint.com Thu Jan 26 08:41:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B93021F86D8 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:41:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.486 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DxOmBTHwoet1 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:41:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from michael.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C55621F86D1 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:41:13 -0800 (PST) X-CheckPoint: {4F217F10-2-1B221DC2-1FFFF} Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.26]) by michael.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0QGfBw5026130; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:41:11 +0200 Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) with mapi; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:41:11 +0200 From: Yoav Nir To: Joe Touch Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:41:11 +0200 Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Thread-Topic: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Thread-Index: AczcSU8KFrqzqNM6T6+9Y2fxoWa3FQ== Message-ID: References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <14032_1327524532_q0PKmpMJ010279_CAF4+nEH-a6hXmHuN634VG5ynMqaBmD5CS38hzd0QynMkFCfeDQ@mail.gmail.com> <1327530078.2185.378.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <4F20AF90.8010207@isi.edu> <4F218020.4010905@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <4F218020.4010905@isi.edu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:41:14 -0000 On Jan 26, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Joe Touch wrote: >>=20 >> I've seen a lot of cases where this was done differently. Someone on >> the mailing list will post something like "Section 3.6 is not clear >> enough", and the chair will reply "can you suggest some alternate text?" >> and then they'll send their own re-write of section 3.6. If this is >> indeed better, the editor will replace the content of section 3.6 with >> the suggested text, and add to the acknowledgement section something >> like "So-and-so contributed text to this document" or if this is their >> only contribution, "So-and-so contributed the contents of section 3.6". >>=20 >> In the first case, the text is not clearly delineated, nor is >> so-and-so added as co-author. Are you saying that this practice is >> wrong? What about contributions that change or add a single sentence? >=20 > I have already addressed this. A single sentence is probably OK to=20 > acknowledge at the end, or sometimes not even at all. A full section=20 > requires the person listed as author on the front page, IMO. In between,= =20 > there is debate on where to draw the line. I don't know. Part of the working group process is the members of the worki= ng group suggesting text. When working groups are functional, this could be= a lot of people. This gets us to 10 people on the front page. You don't ge= nerally see academic papers like that. 3-4 seems to be the practical limit = there. >=20 > However, when you are taking the text from a previous version and you=20 > either "don't know" or are taking large portions verbatim (multiple=20 > whole paragraphs, not necessarily in a row), then IMO you need to=20 > consider this the contribution of an author who is not you. If you know=20 > who it is from the original author list, you can include just that=20 > person; if not, you need to include them all. I agree. >> What about remarks that "literally" is wrong here and should be replaced >> with "figuratively"? >>=20 > I didn't use those words, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. That's just my low-end example of a contribution. I don't think we should l= ist nit-pickers as authors, but they do usually get acknowledged. From touch@isi.edu Thu Jan 26 15:00:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892C221F8625 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:00:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.343 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.256, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vFOrz9VcdV6P for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E5E21F85FC for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0QN01bY003673 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:00:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F21DAF1.8090006@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:00:01 -0800 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yoav Nir Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <14032_1327524532_q0PKmpMJ010279_CAF4+nEH-a6hXmHuN634VG5ynMqaBmD5CS38hzd0QynMkFCfeDQ@mail.gmail.com> <1327530078.2185.378.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <4F20AF90.8010207@isi.edu> <4F218020.4010905@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:00:36 -0000 Hi, Yoav, On 1/26/2012 8:41 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: > > On Jan 26, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > >>> >>> I've seen a lot of cases where this was done differently. Someone on >>> the mailing list will post something like "Section 3.6 is not clear >>> enough", and the chair will reply "can you suggest some alternate text?" >>> and then they'll send their own re-write of section 3.6. If this is >>> indeed better, the editor will replace the content of section 3.6 with >>> the suggested text, and add to the acknowledgement section something >>> like "So-and-so contributed text to this document" or if this is their >>> only contribution, "So-and-so contributed the contents of section 3.6". >>> >>> In the first case, the text is not clearly delineated, nor is >>> so-and-so added as co-author. Are you saying that this practice is >>> wrong? What about contributions that change or add a single sentence? >> >> I have already addressed this. A single sentence is probably OK to >> acknowledge at the end, or sometimes not even at all. A full section >> requires the person listed as author on the front page, IMO. In between, >> there is debate on where to draw the line. > > I don't know. Part of the working group process is the members of > the working group suggesting text. When working groups are > functional, this could be a lot of people. This gets us to 10 people > on the front page. You don't generally see academic papers like that. > 3-4 seems to be the practical limit there. It depends on the area; in some arenas - esp. applied physics - author lists are well into the double-digits: http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/04/long_author_lists_and_books_no.php I think you're in the wiggle area where there is a legitimate decision as to how much a contributor adds to be come an author. IMO, one sentence is too small; one page is large enough, and the devil is inbetween. However, IMO that's a mutual decision for the primary author/editor and the contributor to determine. Once someone is an author - or was, of a previous work - it's not anyone's business to remove them unless a work is published absent all authors (e.g., as with IEEE standards) -- and that's not the case for RFCs. >> However, when you are taking the text from a previous version and you >> either "don't know" or are taking large portions verbatim (multiple >> whole paragraphs, not necessarily in a row), then IMO you need to >> consider this the contribution of an author who is not you. If you know >> who it is from the original author list, you can include just that >> person; if not, you need to include them all. > > I agree. > >>> What about remarks that "literally" is wrong here and should be replaced >>> with "figuratively"? >>> >> I didn't use those words, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. > > That's just my low-end example of a contribution. I don't think we > should list nit-pickers as authors, but they do usually get acknowledged. If someone fixes one nit, not necessarily even acknowledged. Again, that's a mutual decision for the contributor and the primary author/editor - not something the IETF should limit, IMO. Joe From keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com Thu Jan 26 16:21:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87BCC21F8633 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:21:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K6k3NNm9m0qC for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:21:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C8F21F85F3 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:21:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q0R0LCIl027234 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:21:12 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:21:12 +0100 From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" To: Joe Touch Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:21:10 +0100 Subject: RE: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Thread-Topic: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures Thread-Index: Aczbm638T02sqTwDQGmuT9ktcu0zfAA7LVqg Message-ID: References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <4F205E9F.2090305@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <4F205E9F.2090305@isi.edu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 Cc: "C. M. Heard" , Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:21:18 -0000 I specifically limited my comments previously to those documents which are = working group documents, and below that constraint still applies. You seem to identify that the concept of author is well understood in acade= mic and publishing circles. I'm not so sure it easy to apply those argument= s to working group documents. I did some browsing around definitions and there seem to be two concepts th= at apply to authors which I would summarise briefly as: 1) They are responsible for the content of the document. 2) They hold the IPR on the document. If any author of a working group document attempted to control the content = of that document, particularly against the consensus of the working group, = then I as a working group chair would dismiss him immediately from the edit= orial control. Consensus discussion means that the resultant working group document may we= ll contain very little that any one person can claim absolute IPR against. = Certainly, the only body that can claim IPR for the whole of a working grou= p document, albeit potentially derivative IPR, is the IETF itself. If you have some other aspect in mind then maybe you should identify it. If someone is interested in RFCs as a route of publishing documents they ca= n really claim responsibility for as above, then I would suggest they use t= he individual publication stream, rather than submit their documents to wor= king group discussion and adoption. Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@isi.edu] > Sent: 25 January 2012 19:57 > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder; C. M. Heard; Working Group Chairs > Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures >=20 > The difference between those who contribute ideas or negligible amounts > of text and authors is fairly well known in publishing, as is the > concept of an editor. >=20 > The IETF should not try to redefine these distinctions. >=20 > I agree with Juergen; true authors MUST be listed as authors of the doc. > That means they need to show up in the list of authors wherever the doc > is listed. In RFCs, this happens only for names on the top right of the > first page. As a result, this is where authors' names MUST appear. >=20 > Joe >=20 >=20 > On 1/25/2012 11:52 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > > There is no +1 name here for revisions. > > > > BFCP is an original RFC with 3 authors. > > > > The kickoff of a revision is a author draft differences document with a > number of authors none of whom fall in the first set. > > > > The working group has appointed an editor (who happens to fall into the > group of authors of the author document. > > > > Quite frequently any procedure like this ends up doubling the number on > the front cover. > > > > And what about the chairs, reviewers and proto shepherds (and area > directors) who quite frequently end up contributing more material to a > poorly written document than some of the people named as authors. > > > > Quite frankly, the editor appointed by the working group chair is the > one that matters. The authors of the original author draft(s) and any > replaced RFCs need appropriate acknowledgement elsewhere. > > > > Keith > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs- > university.de] > >> Sent: 25 January 2012 19:44 > >> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > >> Cc: C. M. Heard; Joe Touch; Working Group Chairs > >> Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:28:11PM +0100, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > >>> To be honest, I think that is messy, and we could easily create > examples > >> where there is insufficient room on the cover page. > >>> > >>> I'd far rather we changed our procedures (at least for WG documents) > to > >> get to the point where only the editor appears on the front page and w= e > >> have a separate section in the document entitled authors. > >>> > >>> To me that is also correct for AUTH48 on a WG document. The editor is > >> the only one responsible for ensuring what is published represents the > >> document they edited to represent working group consensus. > >> > >> In the academic work, citations matter and indexing engines happen to > >> use the names appearing in references in order to do the statistics. > >> While the contributors section (or a new authors section) of an RFC is > >> in principle a nice idea, it fails to work (at least) for academics > >> since nobody cites an RFC with names hidden someone in the document - > >> only the names on the front page realistically appear in citations. > >> (This is I think also true for the author statistics on the IETF's > >> tools pages.) Hence, if someone authors RFC XYZ which later gets > >> revised and the name of the original author is moved to a contributors > >> section, the author looses. > >> > >> I think the answer really is procedural, that is, when an RFC is being > >> revised, a serious attempt should be made to contact the original > >> authors and to involve them. If they declare no interest or simply > >> disappeared, then their names can be moved to a contributors section. > >> And I am in favour of being flexible with the limit of the number of > >> names on the front page in case a revision causes to add an editor > >> exceeding the normal limit. > >> > >> /js > >> > >> -- > >> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > >> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > >> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From touch@isi.edu Thu Jan 26 17:31:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC5C11E8072 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:31:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.454 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p4Q+wKkxSjVi for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:31:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B223621F85AE for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:31:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0R1UQDU029283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:30:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F21FE32.2090805@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:30:26 -0800 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <4F205E9F.2090305@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: "C. M. Heard" , Working Group Chairs X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:31:14 -0000 Hi, Keith, On 1/26/2012 4:21 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > I specifically limited my comments previously to those documents > which are working group documents, and below that constraint still > applies. > > You seem to identify that the concept of author is well understood in > academic and publishing circles. I'm not so sure it easy to apply > those arguments to working group documents. > > I did some browsing around definitions and there seem to be two > concepts that apply to authors which I would summarise briefly as: > > 1) They are responsible for the content of the document. > > 2) They hold the IPR on the document. > > If any author of a working group document attempted to control the > content of that document, particularly against the consensus of the > working group, then I as a working group chair would dismiss him > immediately from the editorial control. Sure. That's WG process. But you do NOT have the right to omit someone as author who has contributed substantial text to the document. If, by IETF process, keeping someone who interferes as author complicates AUTH48, then AUTH48 is what is broken. > Consensus discussion means that the resultant working group document > may well contain very little that any one person can claim absolute IPR > against. Certainly, the only body that can claim IPR for the whole of a > working group document, albeit potentially derivative IPR, is the IETF > itself. That's certainly true in some cases, but not all. However, taking words verbatim that have been tagged as authored by a group of people REQUIRES including them as author or indenting/quoting the text. If you don't feel that the words were that of the authors in the first place, then you mistakenly listed them as authors. In that case, a doc might have an editor but no specific authors listed - and this happens frequently in the IETF. There are other cases where specific authors write the bulk of the text and are listed as authors. > If you have some other aspect in mind then maybe you should identify > it. > > If someone is interested in RFCs as a route of publishing documents > they can really claim responsibility for as above, then I would suggest > they use the individual publication stream, rather than submit their > documents to working group discussion and adoption. That's between the authors and the WG chairs to decide how to resolve, including rewriting the entire doc. WG chairs can push such text off to the independent stream. IMO, what they cannot do is remove authors from the author list and continue to copy their words verbatim UNLESS they are clearly marked by quotes or indention. Joe From bclaise@cisco.com Fri Jan 27 01:50:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC5E21F8514 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:50:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.407 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y3AiGAbt5RWq for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:50:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA4C21F84F4 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:50:50 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0R9okTr006054; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:50:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.60.67.84] (ams-bclaise-8913.cisco.com [10.60.67.84]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0R9ojdl006562; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:50:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F227375.8020900@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:50:45 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Touch Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <14032_1327524532_q0PKmpMJ010279_CAF4+nEH-a6hXmHuN634VG5ynMqaBmD5CS38hzd0QynMkFCfeDQ@mail.gmail.com> <1327530078.2185.378.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <4F20AF90.8010207@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <4F20AF90.8010207@isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Donald Eastlake , Working Group Chairs , Jeffrey Hutzelman X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:50:52 -0000 Joe, > >> In the meantime, Juergen has brought up an important point, which is >> that some tools computing citation statistics may fail to acknowledge >> the contributions of a person whose name is not listed as an "author" in >> the bibliographic reference to an RFC. That is a shortcoming of those >> tools, not a moral failure on the part of the IETF or its processes. > > It is a shortcoming of the IETF to not clearly indicate authorship. > Obscuring authorship is the IETF's fault, not that of a tool. > > If the IETF wants to list authors at the end of the doc, that's fine - > but when it provides a list with authors' names then they need to be > included in that entry. > > Right now the only names that appear as authors in IETF summaries, > XML, or other IETF-provided material are those indicated on the first > page. It is not the job of a tool to 'figure out' when this is being > obscured. That's no quite true for my reference tool: http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats See for example http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5101. I was the editor, so the only one on the first page, but Thomas got the recognition at http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/thomasdietz.html And this is a good thing! The speed of an SDO based on voluntary individual work depends on the speed of the individual contributors. So anything that motivates people and helps progress, such as visibility and recognition, is a good thing. I would even go one step further and improve http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/thomasdietz.html to include a "contributor" and "acknowledgment" section. Ok, it would be difficult for a lot of reason, but would make a lot of sense... Regards, Benoit. > > Arbitrary rules of the IETF, like limits to the number of authors > explicitly indicated this way, or involving all authors in AUTH48 are > IETF failures. > > How this is all handled definitely affects WG chairs, as it ends up > being implemented by them in how they manage these issues in their > WGs; if this general topic should be taken, e.g., to rfc-interest > (where some process issues are discussed), that's fine too. > > Joe > > From touch@isi.edu Fri Jan 27 11:07:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0164321F8589 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:07:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UXrFbelRM70m for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:07:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5373E21F8532 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:07:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.151.141.64] ([207.151.141.64]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0RJ6GfY023100 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:06:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F22F5A8.8010300@isi.edu> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:06:16 -0800 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benoit Claise Subject: Re: Q about -bis- authorship rules/procedures References: <201201190006.q0J06el5026708@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <4F17E486.3020500@cisco.com> <47CA2D91-5CFA-4175-B233-D40E62DDE297@standardstrack.com> <4F1EF89C.4040002@isi.edu> <20120125194335.GA62986@elstar.local> <14032_1327524532_q0PKmpMJ010279_CAF4+nEH-a6hXmHuN634VG5ynMqaBmD5CS38hzd0QynMkFCfeDQ@mail.gmail.com> <1327530078.2185.378.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <4F20AF90.8010207@isi.edu> <4F227375.8020900@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4F227375.8020900@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: Donald Eastlake , Working Group Chairs , Jeffrey Hutzelman X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:07:10 -0000 On 1/27/2012 1:50 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Joe, >> >>> In the meantime, Juergen has brought up an important point, which is >>> that some tools computing citation statistics may fail to acknowledge >>> the contributions of a person whose name is not listed as an "author" in >>> the bibliographic reference to an RFC. That is a shortcoming of those >>> tools, not a moral failure on the part of the IETF or its processes. >> >> It is a shortcoming of the IETF to not clearly indicate authorship. >> Obscuring authorship is the IETF's fault, not that of a tool. >> >> If the IETF wants to list authors at the end of the doc, that's fine - >> but when it provides a list with authors' names then they need to be >> included in that entry. >> >> Right now the only names that appear as authors in IETF summaries, >> XML, or other IETF-provided material are those indicated on the first >> page. It is not the job of a tool to 'figure out' when this is being >> obscured. > That's no quite true for my reference tool: > http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats There are certainly tools that provide other info, but this isn't what the IETF provides that is indexed by other entities. We can tweak our tools to do whatever is useful, but what's important is what the face of the IETF does. Joe From wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com Mon Jan 30 10:35:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietf.org Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id A5A0D21F86B8; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:35:26 -0800 (PST) From: IETF Agenda To: Working Group Chairs Subject: 83rd IETF - Working Group/BOF Scheduling REMINDER - Cutoff at 5PM PT Today Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20120130183526.A5A0D21F86B8@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:35:26 -0800 (PST) Cc: irsg@irtf.org X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working Group Chairs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:35:26 -0000 83rd IETF Paris, France Meeting Dates: March 25-30, 2012 Host: TBD ----------------------------------------------------------------- IETF meetings start Monday morning and run through Friday afternoon (13:30). We are accepting scheduling requests for all Working Groups and BOFs starting today. The milestones and deadlines for scheduling-related activities are as follows: NOTE: cutoff dates are subject to change. - 2012-01-30 (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group meetings at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). To request a Working Group session, use the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool. - 2012- 02-13 (Monday): Cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to Area Directors at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). To request a BOF, please see instructions on Requesting a BOF. - 2012-02-16 (Thursday): Cutoff date for Area Directors to approve BOFs at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). - 2012-02-23 (Thursday): Preliminary agenda published for comment. - 2012-02-27 (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to reschedule Working Group and BOF meetings 17:00 PT (UTC -8). - 2012-03-02 (Friday): Final agenda to be published. - 2012-03-14 (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. - 2012-03-19 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. - 2012-04-27 (Friday): Proceedings submission cutoff date by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. - 2012-05-16 (Wednesday): Proceedings submission corrections cutoff date by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. Submitting Requests for Working Group and BOF Sessions Please submit requests to schedule your Working Group sessions using the "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool," a Web-based tool for submitting all of the information that the Secretariat requires to schedule your sessions. The URL for the tool is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_session_requester.cgi Instructions for using the tool are available at: http://www.ietf.org/instructions/session_request_tool_instruction.html Please send requests to schedule your BOF sessions to agenda@ietf.org. Please include the acronym of your BOF in the subject line of the message, and include all of the information specified in item (4) of "Requesting Meeting Sessions at IETF Meetings" in the body. (This document is included below.) Submitting Session Agendas For the convenience of meeting attendees, we ask that you submit the agendas for your Working Group sessions as early as possible. Draft Working Group agendas are due Wednesday, March 14, 2012 by 17:00 PT. Revised Working Group agendas are due no later than Monday, March 19, 2012 at 17:00 PT. The proposed agenda for a BOF session should be submitted along with your request for a session. Please be sure to copy your Area Director on that message. Please submit the agendas for your Working Group sessions using the "IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool," a Web-based tool for making your meeting agenda, minutes, and presentation slides available to the community before, during, and after an IETF meeting. If you are a BOF chair, then you may use the tool to submit a revised agenda as well as other materials for your BOF once the BOF has been approved. The URL for the tool is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_proceedings.cgi Additional information about this tool is available at: http://www.ietf.org/instructions/meeting_materials_tool.html Agendas submitted via the tool will be available to the public on the "IETF Meeting Materials" Web page as soon as they are submitted. The URL for the "IETF 83 Meeting Materials" Web page is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/83/materials.html If you are a Working Group chair, then you already have accounts on the "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool" and the "IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool." The same User ID and password will work for both tools. If you are a BOF chair who is not also a Working Group chair, then you will be given an account on the "IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool" when your BOF has been approved. If you require assistance in using either tool, or wish to report a bug, then please send a message to: ietf-action@ietf.org. =============================================================== For your convenience, comprehensive information on requesting meeting sessions at IETF 83 is presented below: 1. Requests to schedule Working Group sessions should be submitted using the "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool," a Web-based tool for submitting all of the information required by the Secretariat to schedule your sessions. The URL for the tool is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_session_requester.cgi Instructions for using the tool are available at: http://www.ietf.org/instructions/session_request_tool_instruction.html If you require an account on this tool, or assistance in using it, then please send a message to ietf-action@ietf.org. If you are unable to use the tool, then you may send your request via e-mail to agenda@ietf.org, with a copy to the appropriate Area Director(s). Requests to schedule BOF sessions must be sent to agenda@ietf.org with a copy to the appropriate Area Director(s). When submitting a Working Group or BOF session request by e-mail, please include the Working Group or BOF acronym in the Subject line. 2. BOFs will NOT be scheduled unless the Area Director(s) approved the BOF. The proponents behind a BOF need to contact a relevant Area Director, preferably well in advance of the BOF approval deadline date. The AD needs to have the full name of the BOF, its acronym, suggested names of chairs, an agenda, full description of the BOF and the information covered in item 4. Please read RFC 5434 for instructions on how to drive a successful BOF effort. The approval depends on, for instance, Internet-Drafts and list discussion on the suggested topic. BOF agenda requests, if approved, will be submitted to the IETF Secretariat by the ADs. 3. A Working Group may request either one or two sessions. If your Working Group requires more than two sessions, then your request must be approved by an Area Director. Additional sessions will be assigned, based on availability, after Monday, February 27, 2012 at 17:00 PT, the cut-off date for requests to reschedule a session. 4. You MUST provide the following information before a Working Group or BOF session will be scheduled: a. Working Group or BOF full name with acronym in brackets: b. AREA under which Working Group or BOF appears: c. CONFLICTS you wish to avoid, please be as specific as possible: d. Expected Attendance: e. Special requests: f. Number of sessions: g. Length of session: - 1 hour - 1 1/2 hours - 2 hours - 2 1/2 hours For more information on scheduling Working Group and BOF sessions, please refer to RFC 2418 (BCP 25), "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures" (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt). =============================================================== For your convenience please find here a list of the IETF Area Directors with their e-mail addresses: IETF Chair Russ Housley Applications Area (app) Pete Resnick Peter Saint-Andre Internet Area (int) Jari Arkko Ralph Droms Operations & Management Area (ops) Ronald Bonica Dan Romascanu Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area (rai) Gonzalo Camarillo Robert Sparks Routing Area (rtg) Stewart Bryant Adrian Farrel Security Area (sec) Stephen Farrell Sean Turner Transport Area (tsv) Wesley Eddy David Harrington =========================================================== Only 54 days until Paris!!