Subject: [mpls-tp] Number of authors on a draft

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:45:30 +0100

In view of comments made about draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-03.txt during the
MPLS WG meeting, it is worth dwelling on some points of IETF process.

Please don't see this as an attack on the authors of
draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-03.txt. Rather, it is a criticism of the MPLS
and PWE3 chairs, and the responsible AD that they did not make these issues
clearer in welcoming many new people to the IETF through the MPLS-TP work.

=IPR and Copyright=

Each draft contains a statement...

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

...and also...

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

By being listed as an author / contributor / editor or an Internet-Draft, a
person is making specific statements and commitments about copyright and IPR
in line with these BCPs and the IETF Trust's Provisions. Please note that
these are personal commitments and the policies of an employer do not give
someone permission to deviate from IETF policy if they wish to be named on a
draft.

=Appropriate Listing of Authors / Contributors / Editors=

Instructions and guidance for the authors of Internet-Drafts may be found at
http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html. There is no firm guidance about
the way in which authors etc. should be presented.

However, the general guidance listed is that "Internet-Drafts are generally
in the format of an RFC". The instructions fro RFC authors is found on the
RFC Editor's page (http://www.rfc-editor.org/howtopub.html). Guidance is
given as...

           A small set of author names, with affiliations, may appear on
           the front page header.  These should be the lead author(s)
           who are most responsible for the actual text.  When there are
           many contributors, the best choice will be to list the person
           or (few) persons who acted as document editor(s) (e.g.,"Tom
           Smith, Editor").

           There is no rigid limit on the size of this set, but there is
           likely to be a discussion if the set exceeds five authors, in
           which case the right answer is probably to list one editor.

It is normal for I-Ds to follow this rule. It is not mandatory that they do,
but eyebrows may be raised if the rule is significantly flouted.

=Voting in the IETF=

The IETF does not vote and finds voting quite unpleasant. This is different
from many environments. Instead, the concept of "rough consensus" is used.

Newcomers are requested to read about the philosophy of the IETF (including
rough consensus) in RFC 4677 or at http://www.ietf.org/tao.html.

Adding names to a draft doesn't demonstrate a whole lot. It does show that
there a number of people who like an idea, but this doesn't achieve anything
much.

Similarly, sending an email to a list saying "I like this idea" is equally
not helpful.

Rough consensus is often judged on a list by examination of technical
arguments and the weight of debate rather than the sheer number of emails.
Emails saying "+1" are sometimes used and may give a flavor of the support
to the WG chair, but don't go further than voting, and are only a small
component of the consensus process.

=Being an Author=

Authors are responsible for the content of a draft. No different from
authoring a paper. An author can reasonably be questioned on the content of
an I-D and should be able to answer (or judged accordingly!).

If an author doesn't like or cannot support part of that content she should
negotiate for change, but may ask for her name to be disassociated with the
draft. This can cause confusion where she has contributed text, but the
copyright rules now mean that by participating the author can hand over
rights to the IETF and so does not need to be listed. Usually, however, the
compromise is to move the person to the Acknowledgements sections with a
note that "Geraldine contributed useful text to section 2.3."

=Getting Your Draft Read=

Finally, Adrian's parting comment at the mic in MPLS-TP was that having a
front page covered in author names might not be a good way to get your draft
read. This was only trying to point that many people in the IETF are
influenced by the voting/consensus thing and have strong views on "how
things should be." It is their flaw, of course, that they judge a draft by
its cover, but if you want them to read your draft you need to not upset
them.

Hoping that this information is useful to people...

Adrian and Loa