Subject: [issue82] Author's list be modified

From: Weiming Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:14:17 +0000

New submission from Weiming Wang <[email-masked]>:

06 draft the Author's list only contains 5 editors rather than 7 authors. This 
must be fixed.

Because the xml2rfc automatically generates an author list which only contains 
editors in the first page. To solve this question, I suggest:

1. During the usual update process, keep the 7 author list aw well as the auto-
generated 5 author list.

2. Right before we submit to IESG, manually delete the 5 author list and 
substitute it with 7 author list. A page re-alignment may be needed to do so.

Weiming

----------
category: Editorial
draft: draft-ietf-forces-protocol
messages: 423
nosy: weiming
priority: Must fix
status: Pending
title: Author's list be modified

___________________________________________________
Forces issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/forces/issue82>
___________________________________________________

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:31:05 -0500

This seems like an invitation to trouble.
The RFC editor is going to have serious question as to why more than 5 (or 
sometimes 6) people are appearing on the front page.  The accepted practice 
is to put an editor on the front page, and have a "Contributors" section in 
the document, distinct from the acknowledgements, where the folks who wrote 
parts of the document are listed.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

PS: It is understood that this causes some university participants some 
difficulty.  But listing large numbers of authors on the front is also 
ineffective and misleading.  Sometimes, design teams reach a compromise and 
list 3 members who did the most work on the front.

---

From: Weiming Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:02:41 +0800

Joel,

I think you have a misunderstanding of the question.  It does not ask to put all
authors on the front page, it just asks to correct the Author's address section,
which is obviously a mistake owing to the xml2rfc tool limitation.

Thanks,
Weiming

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>