Subject: [dhcwg] Helping with draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:31:26 +0200

Hi,

I would like to confirm what I stated during DHC meeting. I'm interested
in this draft going forward. Ted asked for voluneers to help with this
work. I will join this effort once work on DHCPv6 route option is
completed. I was also just told that there is one other person, who is
interested in joining this effort.

I'm not sure how we should proceed with this? Should we contact David
and ask him to upload -08 version with new co-author(s)? Or perhaps
start new draft based on this, but focused on DHCPv6 only? What happens
with the original draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines then? Can it be
removed somehow from WG item list?

Cheers,
Tomek Mrugalski

---

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:24:45 +0000

Hi, Tomek,

As we discussed with Ted after the DHC meeting, we can start either a total new draft or continue with the current one depending on whether David Hankins responses. In either case, I think David has credit to continue to be coauthor until he refuses. I will provide a primary version for DHCPv6 option guideline by end of April.

Meanwhile, I am not sure whether it is worthy writing a DHCPv4 option guideline. If the WG or at least WG chairs confirm, we can form a force for it.

Best regards,

Sheng
________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] on behalf of Tomek Mrugalski [[email-masked]]
Sent: 29 March 2012 17:31
To: DHC WG
Subject: [dhcwg] Helping with draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines

Hi,

Cheers,
Tomek Mrugalski
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:34:10 +0000

The usual way to do this is to clearly acknowledge the original author in the acknowledgments section rather than including him as an author.   If you include him as an author, it places requirements on him that aren't appropriate in this case.

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:29:30 +0200

On 12-03-29 13:34, Ted Lemon wrote:
> The usual way to do this is to clearly acknowledge the original
> author in the acknowledgments section rather than including him as an
> author.   If you include him as an author, it places requirements on
> him that aren't appropriate in this case.
David did a lot of work on this draft and I expect that significant part
of new version of this draft (whatever if it is option-guidelines-08 or
a completely new draft) will be based on what is in
option-guidelines-07. From that perspective, it would be rather
inappropriate to remove David. I think it is fair to ask David if he
prefers to be kept as co-author or rather be only mentioned in
acknowledgements.

We will communicate with David off-the list and see what way forward he
prefers.

Tomek