Subject: Re: [manet] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-02.txt

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 21:17:57 +0100

Hi Jiazi (draft editor)

Please note that I had effort to make below change in this draft, but
my name is not in acknowledgement as others were. Please add my name.
I don't think the changes was not influenced by my inputs and
discussions. I don't think that the changes was to happen if I ignored
the draft ( i.e. it was in WGLC and not much discussions). I don't
think I should be discouraged,

Best regards
Abdussalam Baryun,
+++++++++++++++++
If the IETF culture is to encourage participants then editors SHOULD
add efforts owners in acknowledgements, otherwise participants MAY be
discouraged (depends on individual culture).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The below message in MANET WG list

On 3/20/13, Jiazi Yi <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The authors of nhdp-sec-threats have submitted a new revision based on the
> comments during WGLC.
>
> The only technical change is that, a new sub-section is added on link
> quality update:
>
> ==========
> 4.8.  Attack on Link Quality Update
>
>   According to NHDP, "Link quality is a mechanism whereby a router MAY
>   take considerations other than message exchange into account for
>   determining when a link is and is not a candidate for being
>   considered as HEARD or SYMMETRIC.  As such, it is a link admission
>   mechanism.".
>
>   Section 14.4 of NHDP [RFC6130] then lists several examples of which
>   information can be used to update link quality.  One of the listed
>   examples is to update link quality based on [RFC5444] packet
>   exchanges between neighbor routers, e.g., an NHDP Router may update
>   the link quality of a neighbor based on receipt or loss of packets if
>   they include a sequential packet sequence number.
>
>   NHDP does not specify how to acquire link quality updates
>   normatively, however, attack vectors may be introduced if an
>   implementation chooses to calculate link quality based on packet
>   sequence numbers.  The consequences of such threats would depend on
>   specific implementations.  For example, if the link quality update is
>   based on sequential packet sequence number from neighbor routers, a
>   Comprised NDHP Router can spoof packets appearing to be from another
>   Legitimate NHDP Router that skips some packet sequence numbers.  The
>   NHDP Router receiving the spoofed packets may degrade the link
>   quality as it appears that several packets have been dropped.
>   Eventually, the router remove the neighbor when the link quality
>   drops below HYST_REJECT.
> ==========
>
> Your comments are welcome.
>
> @chairs:
> I suppose that if this section gets approved, there is no need for another
> WGLC for the whole document?
>
> best
>
> Jiazi
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: [email-masked]
>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>> draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-02.txt
>> Date: March 20, 2013 11:43:53 AM GMT+01:00
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>>
>>
>> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-02.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Jiazi Yi and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>>
>> Filename:	 draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
>> Revision:	 02
>> Title:		 Security Threats for NHDP
>> Creation date:	 2013-03-20
>> Group:		 manet
>> Number of pages: 17
>> URL:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-02.txt
>> Status:
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
>> Htmlized:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-02
>> Diff:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-02
>>
>> Abstract:
>>   This document analyses common security threats of the Neighborhood
>>   Discovery Protocol (NHDP), and describes their potential impacts on
>>   MANET routing protocols using NHDP.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

---

From: Jiazi Yi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:29:16 +0100

Dear AB, 

On this particular issue (threats of packet sequence number), as far as I can remember, the change was not based on (or influenced by) your input. In the meantime, the input from Chris, Henning, Teco, etc., does have impact on the document. 

It is true that you mentioned several times that message sequence number threat should be kept in nhdp-sec-threat. However, you didn't provide valid technical argument why it should be kept. Actually, there is no doubt that the original section of sequence number in -00 revision was wrong. 

My understanding of "IETF input" must be based on technical argument. 
Simply saying "I want *foo*, not *bar*" - without explaining why - doesn't say much thing. Even *foo* was adopted in the end. 
In the contrast, even some one is against *foo*, but he provided valid arguments during the discussion that help improving the design, he should be regarded as contributor. 

Last but not least, we acknowledged all the MANET participants - if you regard yourself as one of the participants, then you are acknowledged. 

btw, I remembered that you brought a discussion on RFC Acknowledgement http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77065.html before. I didn't follow that thread, but I think other participants have already explained fairly well how it works. 
My personal suggestion is that, if you put move attention to the previous sections of the document(s), rather than acknowledgment section, you would be naturally listed there - that's how IETF works. 

sincerely 

Jiazi

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 12:42:31 +0100

Hi Jazi,

I disagree with draft-editors decision, comments below,

On 3/23/13, Jiazi Yi <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Dear AB,
>
> On this particular issue (threats of packet sequence number), as far as I
> can remember, the change was not based on (or influenced by) your input. In
> the meantime, the input from Chris, Henning, Teco, etc., does have impact on
> the document.

my input had impact as well, please read my input, and discussion with
you, you did not consider Teco input while I supported, the editors
input was against to mention the change to consider NHDP sequence
number consideration, now the WG draft considers,

>
> It is true that you mentioned several times that message sequence number
> threat should be kept in nhdp-sec-threat. However, you didn't provide valid
> technical argument why it should be kept. Actually, there is no doubt that
> the original section of sequence number in -00 revision was wrong.

No I did provide valid argument, I mentioned RFC6130 content that this
threat draft ignored and one editor named that content as it was not
normative, I continued arguing the important to mention thoes items
then Teco supported my concerns as well, then the editors found that
my argument is important because an old participant supported.

> Simply saying "I want *foo*, not *bar*" - without explaining why - doesn't
> say much thing. Even *foo* was adopted in the end.
> In the contrast, even some one is against *foo*, but he provided valid
> arguments during the discussion that help improving the design, he should be
> regarded as contributor.
>

I explained why, not sure why you think my input has no reason, but
please don't ignore that reviewers in IETF consider consistency of
drafts, so I was focusing that your draft is following RFC6130, and
that the draft mentioned sequence number in its draft-00 then removed
without the WG consensus (which was not reflecting some participants
concerns that I reminded the WG) do you think there is no reason now,

> Last but not least, we acknowledged all the MANET participants - if you
> regard yourself as one of the participants, then you are acknowledged.

You mean the editors of this draft (I will note them as not
acknowledging participants, for my future review). I am a MANET WG
participants, but if you mention the names that made efforts it is
more true because many are MANET participants and never send a
comment. Please note that IETF mentioned, Request For Comments= RFC. I
commented on the draft, and will only continue commenting on drafts
that are edited and monitored by acknowledging IETF participants.

>
> btw, I remembered that you brought a discussion on RFC Acknowledgement
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77065.html before. I
> didn't follow that thread, but I think other participants have already
> explained fairly well how it works.

Yes, which I am following, because my input was impact on changes on
this draft and I claim impact indirectly on others as to update
RFC6130 and other RFCs in MANET WG.

> My personal suggestion is that, if you put move attention to the previous
> sections of the document(s), rather than acknowledgment section, you would
> be naturally listed there - that's how IETF works.
>

my suggestion is that editors SHOULD not ignore the WG participants
input and suggestions. The editors don't control the edit process of
WG drafts, it is controled by WG, the editors just follow, represent
versions of participants related input and edit.

Overall, if the way you do is the true IETF work way then I will know
now why many people leave the IETF, because I want IETF WG work as a
team in IETF. I would like to change that also if it was true. There
is no harm if you acknowledge efforts and inputs, don't know why
people like to do that, I always acknowledge my document reviewers,
hope that ALL IETF drafts and RFC acknowledges its commenters. If you
don't acknowledge why you request for comments, that is strange and
not reasonable.

Regards
Abdussalam Baryun

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:46:07 -0400

On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:42 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ...

It is non-sensical to expect document editors to track and list everybody
who had input on a given draft, particularly when one considers the volume
of comments received on many of the mailing lists and working groups.

The "Acknowledgements section" has a long tradition of listing those folks 
who provided substantial contributions to the document, and often has all 
others by reference in a "members of the Foo working group" mention in that 
section.

In my opinion, it would be a shame for any IETF energies to be diverted for 
the purposes of second-guessing the good faith efforts of document editors
by revisiting this tradition where we already have successful running code.

/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone. This email acknowledges the members of the 
              "ietf" mailing list as influences used during preparation-
              please do not expect any other acknowledgement even if you 
              sent a message which you feel was formative to my thoughts.

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:42:01 -0700 (PDT)

> by revisiting this tradition where we already have successful running code.

Therefore, I would suggest that if someone feels they contributed and
there is any evidence in blue sheets or mailing list comments, give them
credit. I think the act of following the mailing list discussion w/o
comment makes the contribution one of active review. So taking the time
to offer comment rises to a level above that. Since working groups don't
have membership, acknowledging all members of a WG is meaningless. 

There have been several recent long threads regarding how to encourage
continued participation in the IETF. Acknowledgement of WG participation
by 'name' is a small token to encourage future contributions, and I
suspect for some employer funded participants, important in the
justification of that funding.

Dave Morris

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:36:11 -0700

>of comments received on many of the mailing lists and working groups.

I would expect a document editor to track changes and be able to 
explain why the changes were made.  My guess is that a significant 
number of working group drafts do not receive a high volume of comments.

>have membership, acknowledging all members of a WG is meaningless.

Yes.

>justification of that funding.

Yes.

The tradition of acknowledgments may be slowly fading away for obvious reasons.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 00:59:43 +0100

I don't agree that editors should miss efforts and input owners for
their individual-draft or WG draft. I think it is a shame that editors
may ignore such efforts while they benefit from the input to change
their draft. Why editor name is mentioned as authors not contributors
while it may be the IETF draft, IMHO because they are the main
contributors, but acknowledgements are not only for other input
contributors, also SHOULD include commenters who reply to requests and
add to the document value/direction.

Once I heard one IETF WG Chair (security issues wg) explaining the
*note well* as if any participant makes a side conversation ideas and
was heard by others, then it can be stolen. It is a shame to allow
stealing information without relating to sources or resources, I think
not acknowledging reviewers is not professional and wrong tradition.

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:55:00 +0100

Just to make things clear that the intention of documents
acknowledging is to reflect the truth of any document process and
connect information or resources. IMHO, it is not the purpose to show
credit to any person including authors, it is to show how changes were
developed and show true document-history.

 So when I read a RFC I may go through the document process and its
draft versions, while going through the drafts related I see
acknowledged names so I may find the input on the list for such name.
In this way we have connections between inputs otherwise the IETF
system has no connection between its important information.

AB

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:04:36 -0800

> system has no connection between its important information.

We have the mailing list archives, we've got the document shepherd
writeups, we've got the IESG evaluation record, we've got the IESG
writeups, we've got meeting minutes, we've got jabber session
archives, we've got audio recordings of meetings, and we've got the
document history.

Melinda

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:11:29 -0800

Melinda

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 22:23:18 -0400

I think I at least partly disagree.  The acknowledgements section of 
RFCs was not, and to the best of my knowledge is not, concerned with 
capturing the history of where specific changes or ideas came from.  It 
ought to be concerned with giving credit to folks who made particularly 
large, but not authorship level, contributions to the document.

I have seen I-Ds which included change logs which made an effort to 
capture the major changes to a document and their cause.  these were, at 
best, ungainly.  And are, as far as I know, always removed before 
publicaiton as an RFC.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:10:20 -0700

On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It ought to be concerned with giving credit to folks who made particularly large, but not authorship level, contributions to the document.

+1

Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between.

If you feel like you should be listed in the Acknowledgements section of a WG document due to your contribution, and you're not listed in WG Last Call, ask the WG to be included. 'Nuff said.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:26:35 +0700

On 03/25/2013 09:23 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> capturing the history of where specific changes or ideas came from.  
> It ought to be concerned with giving credit to folks who made 
> particularly large, but not authorship level, contributions to the 
> document.

I'm sure that everyone has their own practice WRT authorship, 
contribution and acknowledgment, but this is my own of longstanding: if 
a person contributes text that can be used as-is, w/o modification, I 
list them as an author (unless they request otherwise); if a person 
contributes text that is useful but requires editing to fit in, I list 
them as a contributor; everyone else who at least makes a comment 
(useful or not) gets listed in the "Acknowledgments" section.  As an 
aside, I have been occasionally scolded as "snarky" by ADs and others 
for saying something like 'Thanks to...for (mostly) useful comments', 
the parenthesized portion being the offensive one.  Perhaps those people 
live in a world where all comments are informed and useful; I only wish 
that I did.

> capture the major changes to a document and their cause.  these were, 
> at best, ungainly.  And are, as far as I know, always removed before 
> publicaiton as an RFC.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:48:48 -0300

> best, ungainly.  And are, as far as I know, always removed before

I used to include such a thing as an appendix, with an explicit request
to the RFC-Ed to remove such section/appendix before publication of the
document as an RFC.

FWIW, I have abandoned such practice -- mostly because it takes too much
effort to write a decent changelog, *and* we have a draft diff too at
tools.ietf.org. When needed/appropriate, I've posted a summary of major
changes to the relevant mailing-list.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:02:36 +0100

Hi Melinda

I like what we have so far, but are those connected
processes/information reflected into the produced document? Why
ignoring names of volunteers? I suggest to fix this,

AB
+++++++++++++

Melinda

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 22:05:42 -0800

> ignoring names of volunteers? I suggest to fix this,

My experience over lo, these many years is that the best way to ensure
that you're recognized is to produce text/suggestions/ideas that other
people find valuable.

Melinda

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:10:37 +0100

> capturing the history of where specific changes or ideas came from.

Do you have a reference that shows that IETF follows your opinion,
please point to a best practice of informational RFC that mentions
that, we should not assume.

>  It

Maybe that is majority of editors but should not be true. The
contributors are mentioned in RFC as contributors (i.e. that added
large technical contributing), and acknowledgements are thanking folks
that participated
> best, ungainly.  And are, as far as I know, always removed before

If participants agreed to do that then it is ok, as long as all are
happy. Please note that some participants have right to ask to remove
their name, but also IMO we need not as editors to remove or ignore
without permission.

Thanks
AB

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 06:19:20 +0000

Abusallam,

if you want namecheck credit on an internet draft, may I suggest simply writing an internet draft yourself?

(I would also recommend leaving writing drafts until after a PhD is complete; for the PhD, it's academic papers that matter.)

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/

_____________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [[email-masked]]
Sent: 25 March 2013 06:02
To: melinda.shore
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

Hi Melinda

AB
+++++++++++++

Melinda

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:28:15 +0100

Some people never recognise new comers ideas until backed up with old
comer idea. Do you think that is right? I agree with your suggestion
only if the IETF editor team agree to include you in the possibility
of produce team ideas. I don't think all working groups in the IETF
are giving chance to people/mew-comers to involve/participate, my
experience that I am ignored, so the best way to be valuable for
future reader, is not to let some team to exclude others. From my
experience, I see that some teams just want their document to go
through IESG without comments/delays. Do you think that is good for
the process? This ignorance should be fixed.

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:32:01 +0100

I already did write many I-Ds and may write one to fix this in IETF as
many do fix things by I-Ds. This discussion and others are just start
to see opinions,

AB

On 3/25/13, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
> (I would also recommend leaving writing drafts until after a PhD is
> complete; for the PhD, it's academic papers that matter.)
>
> Lloyd Wood

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 22:38:41 -0800

On 3/24/13 10:28 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> comer idea. Do you think that is right?

No, I think that is not right.

I brought middlebox work to the IETF as my initial
involvement.  It did not go smoothly, but it went,
and we ended up chartering a new working group.  I think
you'll find many similar stories.  It can be extremely
frustrating bringing new work in, whether you're a newcomer
or an old-timer.  I've got some stuff I'm working on now
that I'm having considerable difficulty finding traction
with but the solution to that is not to whine to the
IETF discussion list, but to improve the presentation
and framework, and make it clear that the problem is
well-defined and soluble.  (It's extremely difficult
to move middlebox-related work forward in the IETF -
on balance that's a good thing, given the seriousness
of the potential impacts).

You get what you get, and you have to work with what you
have.  If you have defensible ideas it can work out quite well.
If you have indefensible ideas, well, here you are.

Melinda

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:11:48 +0100

AB,

I've been following this first with increasing amusement,  ... not!

A search on Baryun for IDs on the RFC Editors web page gives the
following result:

"o Based on your search of [Baryun] in the All Fields field zero matches 
were made."

Time to terminate this "discussion"?

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:14:15 +0100

> Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between.

Bingo.  It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they want to list in the Acknowledgements section.

Trying to force people to thank other people strikes me as completely misguided.

(That said, as a contributor, I have certain expectations of document authors here, but these are *not* actionable in any sense.)  As an author, I sometimes have forgotten to include people who made contributions worth a mention, and I would have been spared the shame if the contributor would have alerted me to that at the right occasion.  As a contributor, I have never felt the need to pressure an author to include me, though.

It does make sense to relay some common sense of what is expected in an Acknowledgements section to new authors.
I don't know we do this at the moment.

> If you feel like you should be listed in the Acknowledgements section of a WG document due to your contribution, and you're not listed in WG Last Call, ask the WG to be included. 'Nuff said.

I'd modify this to "ask the authors".  
Ask, as in "shouldn't the Acknowledgement section be updated", not demand as in "I have an ******g right to be in there".

The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG consensus as the authors' street addresses.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:58:19 +0000

Personally, as a fairly active WG participant and reviewer, I would
not expect an acknowledgement unless I contribute a significant new
idea or a reasonable sized chunk of text.

As an author or editor, my intention is to acknowledge people whose
input led to new ideas or new text. Possibly, I'd acknowledge
someone who found a significant error.

I don't really think acknowledgement is needed for everybody who
speaks up; fixing a typo or saying "+1" is not a contribution.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:28:10 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>that, we should not assume.

I agree with the comments in the message from Joel Halpern at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg78211.html  In 
my opinion the acknowledgements "may explain the scope and nature of 
contributions".  It is not a log of changes.

>the process? This ignorance should be fixed.

I don't know whether it would be helpful to suggest reading 
draft-krishnan-review-process-01 (expired draft).

When things do not work the way I wish I can:

  (a) Ask for the process to be changed.

  (b) Consider that I am being treated unfairly.

  (c) Step back and think about why things do not work out the way I wish.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Jiazi Yi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:58:03 +0100

Dear AB, 

I'm a little shocked on the amount of time we spent on this issue. I'll be brief:

1. The change on "threats on packet sequence number" is minimal. It's not a normative part of NHDP - even this section is removed, the draft won't change much. 

2. Even for that change, with my short memory,  I couldn't remember valid argument from you. 

3. As a lot people have mentioned, it's impossible to list all the people who gave input to a document. There are a lot of my colleagues who provide useful comments, but they are not listed explicitly in the ACK section. 

4. You are welcome to provide technical comments. That would be a much better way to be listed in ACK or as contributor, than taking the fight here. I'm uncomfortable with wasting time of you and all the others on this issue. 

best

Jiazi

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:36:46 +0100

Hi Carsten,

 In general, I agree we don't force authors/owners of documents, as
tradition in the world and in all reasonable organisation, we never
force any author to be thankful. But don't forget the situation in
IETF is different and the documents are different as well.

 The document is a IETF document (not individual) and the authors are
not the only owners of the I-D as in other documents outside IETF (we
name them editors because IETF works/documents are shared for its
better publication not the authors' publication). The documents were
called for volunteers in IETF to participate and review, why the IETF
request that if it does not include them.

 In any I-D it is a personal statement for the IETF not the authors,
this is my beleive, otherwise why I should participate/volunteer if i
am not dealing with IETF business (don't want to participate in
private or public companies business),

AB

On 3/25/13, Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments
>> sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are
>> fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between.
>
> Bingo.  It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they
> want to list in the Acknowledgements section.
>
> (That said, as a contributor, I have certain expectations of document
> authors here, but these are *not* actionable in any sense.)  As an author, I
> sometimes have forgotten to include people who made contributions worth a
> mention, and I would have been spared the shame if the contributor would
> have alerted me to that at the right occasion.  As a contributor, I have
> never felt the need to pressure an author to include me, though.
>
>> If you feel like you should be listed in the Acknowledgements section of a
>> WG document due to your contribution, and you're not listed in WG Last
>> Call, ask the WG to be included. 'Nuff said.
>
> Ask, as in "shouldn't the Acknowledgement section be updated", not demand as
> in "I have an ******g right to be in there".
>
> The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG
> consensus as the authors' street addresses.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:04:47 -0300

I have gave some feedback to some I+D authors, I have  commented I+Ds
on emailing lists, etc. but never with any expectation of being thanked
by and ack in the I+D or even to include my comments if those are not
supported by the authors or the WG. My only expectation to participate
in the IETF is a better Internet, period.

	Of course it is nice to be ack in the I+D, you feel that you are doing
a good contribution, but we should not be motivated to comment just by that.

	Saying this, and as other have said let the authors to ack to anybody
they want. They are spending a lot of time writing the I+D, listening
people, etc. , Don't do a bureaucratic process out of it.

Cheers,
as

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:38:07 -0700

> Bingo.  It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they want to list in the Acknowledgements section.

+/- 0. For personal documents, it is up to the author; for WG documents, it is up to the WG. Some WGs are acknowledgment-heavy, some are not. I have been in WGs which used "you might get listed in the Acknowledgements" as a tool to get better reviews. It seemed cheesy, but it worked.

> The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG consensus as the authors' street addresses.

Disagree. WG documents are WG documents. If the author/editor doesn't want to do what the WG consensus is about the document, the author/editor can walk away.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:05:22 -0600

> Time to terminate this "discussion"?

Actually the following search ...

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=baryun&rfcs=on&activeDrafts=on&oldDrafts=on&search_submit=

... yields ...

draft-baryun-manet-technology-00 	MANET Subnet Technologies
Considerations 	2012-07-30 	Expired 			

draft-baryun-manet-terminology-00 	Terminology in Mobile Ad hoc
Networks  	2012-07-04 	Expired 			

draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00 	Key Words of Conditional Language of
Requirements Levels 	2012-07-31 	Expired 			

draft-baryun-roll-nap-00 	The Node Ability of Participation (NAP)
2012-08-01 	Expired

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:35:22 -0400

--On Monday, March 25, 2013 09:05 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> A search on Baryun for IDs on the RFC Editors web page gives
>> the following result:
>> 
>> "o Based on your search of [Baryun] in the All Fields field
>> zero matches were made."
>> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=baryun&rfcs=on&a
> ctiveDrafts=on&oldDrafts=on&search_submit=
> 
> ... yields ...
> 
> draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00 	Key Words of Conditional
> Language of Requirements Levels 	2012-07-31 	Expired 			
> 
> draft-baryun-roll-nap-00 	The Node Ability of Participation
> (NAP) 2012-08-01 	Expired

And, actually, this is more interesting.  I don't follow MANET
or ROLL, but the 2119 update got some discussion on the IETF
list.  If we think we have good ideas, most of us listen
carefully to the discussions and then generate -01 drafts that
attempt to incorporate the suggestions and deal with the
objections.  Here, the documents are abandoned at -00.  The
author has moved on to complaining about how badly the IETF and
various of its WGs are broken instead of trying to work with the
community to refine the ideas.

That has nothing to do with whether the particular contributions
in MANET should be acknowledged in any particular document.  Had
either of the two I-Ds listed above that were addressed to that
WG gotten traction we might be having a discussion now about who
he would see fit to acknowledge.   But, instead, we see expired
-00 drafts and a lot of complaints.

Sad situation for all concerned.

    john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:38:13 -0700

Folks,

There have been more than 25 postings on this sub-thread, and I don't 
see any indication that it covers a 'problem' in the IETF, or at least 
not one that has any constituency behind it.

If this thread is supposed to accomplish more than assuage one person's 
concern, what is it and how will it be accomplished?

d/

ps. I also don't see any evidence that that one person is being assuaged...

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:54:10 -0400

--On Monday, March 25, 2013 08:38 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> There have been more than 25 postings on this sub-thread, and
> I don't see any indication that it covers a 'problem' in the
> IETF, or at least not one that has any constituency behind it.

Dave,

I mostly agree with your analysis.  At the same time, a fairly
wide range of beliefs and opinions about what and who should
appear in acknowledgments has emerged, including the idea that
acknowledgments can be used to "buy" participation or reviews.
I personally find the latter idea abhorrent, but that just
indicates that there is some spectrum of opinions.

So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about
acknowledgments would be in order.  If so, Abdussalam has done
us something of a favor by raising the issue explicitly (no
matter what various of us think of his methods).  If such
guidance is needed, a lengthy discussion on the IETF list is
almost certainly not the best way to put it together, so we
agree about what should happen now even if not completely about
the reasons or situation.

    best,
    john

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:59:57 -0400

> the reasons or situation.

It does not necessarily follow that because there is significant variation, 
more guidance is needed.  Personally, I think there should be a strong bias 
against more bureaucracy around non-technical aspects of IETF work.

Scott K

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:01:08 -0700

On 3/25/2013 8:54 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>   At the same time, a fairly

We haven't had a perceived problem, no matter the criteria individuals 
might be using for their own acks sections.

If you want to elevate your concerns, feel free to suggest text and a 
venue for it and then garner support for it.

My own view is that we don't have a problem and that we have have far 
more significant issues to spend group energy on, especially given how 
difficult it is to get consensus on IETF structure and process changes...

  d/

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:16:26 +0000

I will/may continue my draft work so you will expect -01 in future, the
reason of let expire is just I got a little bussy with other private work,
and sometimes with IETF requests.

AB
++++

    john

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:17:36 +0000

On 03/25/13 11:54, "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]> allegedly wrote:
>acknowledgments would be in order.

or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not
subject to IETF guidance.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:20:29 -0800

> subject to IETF guidance.

Excellent.

Melinda

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:24:31 -0400

> subject to IETF guidance.

My advice to document authors would be that you want the acknowledgements section, and you want good names in there. Ambitions towards a purist meritocracy aside, I think it's a simple truism that if you want to make progress with (say) a DNS-related draft, you want as many big DNS names listed as co-authors or as contributors as you can. Doing so adds weight to the document, makes it easier to get it reviewed and makes reviews more successful.

(I am not saying that this is a primary concern; document quality, the relative craziness of the ideas encapsulated within, prompt attention to suggested changes, socialisation with relevant wg chairs and ADs, hallway conversations, etc are also obviously important.)

My habit is to have the document source (and rendered copy) open on my screen as I read and digest comments. If I make a change to the document following someone's comment, I add them to the Acknowledgements section (and update the change history section that I keep in a disposable appendix). The additional effort required to do these small things is not great; I feel that the value of such work is non-zero.

I have no great opinion on whether the Acknowledgements section should be required. But I think it's useful, and would include it even if it wasn't.

Joe

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:27:29 -0400

+1. My view as well.  I will add I think it generally means there will a 
problem in a WG if an AUTHOR has issues with its WG participants, enough 
to a point he/she begins to ignore them - despite all the input they 
provided, included the indirect ones that help mold others to think and 
chime in.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:35:13 +0100

> Disagree. WG documents are WG documents. If the author/editor doesn't want to do what the WG consensus is about the document, the author/editor can walk away.

The WG can decide to have a "contributors" section or whatever it wants.

The acknowledgements section, however, is, very much like the street address, the authors' thing, and entirely up to their conscience.

(And, yes, the authors can certainly agree to be part of any "scheme" that uses the acknowledgements section as a Skinner box, if they want to.
But I never again want to read a justification by an author why a particular person is not listed in the acknowledgements section.  Never.
And that's my last statement on this thread.)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:35:29 -0400

It seems to me that you are setting up by assertion a standard that has 
never applied to this community.

Having said that, if we want to go down this path, then we could do what 
groups like IEEE do.  Remove all authors names, all personal 
acknowledgements, etc.  The work is simply the product of the committee. 
  I would prefer not to go down that path.  But if the alternative is 
copying every name from every person reported to have commented on the 
draft in the minutes or shown in the archive to have sent an email about 
the draft into a meaningless acknowledgements section, then the pure 
committee view would seem more sensible.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:40:23 -0400

--On Monday, March 25, 2013 11:59 -0400 Scott Kitterman
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> agree about what should happen now even if not completely
>> about the reasons or situation.
> 
> It does not necessarily follow that because there is
> significant variation,  more guidance is needed.  Personally,
> I think there should be a strong bias  against more
> bureaucracy around non-technical aspects of IETF work.

Yes, Scott.  And I've been saying the latter, rather
consistently I think, for years.

However, I quite deliberately said "perhaps", not "we should
rush out and do something".  Equally deliberately, I said
"guidance" not "a bunch of new rules and mechanisms for
enforcing them".   Especially given the interaction between
acknowledgments and IPR policies, a little general guidance
might be worthwhile even though I would worry about the risk of
is being turned into rules.

I would definitely consider Scott Brim's suggestion to be within
the range of acceptable guidance.  So would a clear statement
that Acknowledgments sections and their content are entirely at
the discretion of the listed authors/editors, even though the
latter might require some adjustments in IPR policy.

If someone feels like doing the work, I'd recommend a discussion
(off the IETF list) with the IESG or selected ADs about whether
a draft would be welcome and how it should be handled.
Abdussalam, I would suggest that you _not_ try to take the lead
on that unless you can do so as a collector and careful and
balanced interpreter of community ideas, not as simply an
expression of your own, obviously passionate, beliefs on the
subject.

    john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:45:01 -0700

On 3/25/2013 9:35 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> The acknowledgements section, however, is, very much like the street
> address, the authors' thing, and entirely up to their conscience.

Sorry, no.

It is not a collection of objective data, like the author contact 
information.  It is a value statement about people.

Citing a 'contributors' section is invention on-the-fly.  It's not 
irrational, but it is not established IETF practice.

Again, we don't have a current problem.  So let's not fix it...

Most authors are actually editors.  They are the working group's 
intelligent pen.  Even when the author is the primary source of creation 
in the working group, the point behind having working groups is for the 
document to be a product of that group, not of the author.

That authors and working groups often misunderstand this is a different 
concern, but it's important that we not institutionalize more 
independence of authors.

For example would it be reasonable for an author to have the 
acknowledgements section say:

     This document was produced in spite of the disruptive and damaging 
contributions of Participant X and Participant Y.

d/

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:42:46 -0400

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Brim <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> acknowledgments would be in order.

    Scott> or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section
    Scott> and not subject to IETF guidance.

I strongly prefer that documents list the names of people who have made
significant enough contributions that they are likely to be significant
from an IPR standpoint (copyright or patent).  I don't care whether this
is in an acknowledgments or contributors section (there are important
differences).

I understand we may not have a community consensus on this.  However I
think it's important to remember that the names in the document do help
people understand their IPR risk exposure. (negative in the sense of
patents; you know who probably was obligated to disclose).  It's not
absolute or authoratative, but I sure wouldn't want to be the one
explaining to a judge how I'd made nothing that ccould be considered an
IETF contribution in a document for which I was listed in the
contributors section.

If I were an chair of a WG and the WG had consensus they wanted to make
sure someone was on the hook for IPR, I'd be really put out if the
editor objected to listing them.

So, while I agree that excessive guidance would be excessive, as with so
many things, it depends.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:49:51 -0400

>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> writes:

    Dave> Citing a 'contributors' section is invention on-the-fly.  It's
    Dave> not irrational, but it is not established IETF practice.

I believe contributors sections to be IETF practice.

As an example take a look at 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html
In particular the authors vs contributors section.

When I was on the IESG, the IESG policy was consistent with the RFC
Editor's policy in this regard.

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:55:08 -0400

> subject to IETF guidance.

or include examples of where, how, when professional considerations are 
made.

Keep point to note here, unless you not felt this ignorance and even 
tried to privately deal with it without success, its hard to appreciate 
what the OP is stating.   Its not just about giving one "just dues." We 
don't all expect to get ack.  But its also possible a reflection of poor 
judgement in a draft writing and may help explain some WG conflicts.

Lets say for example of a "bad" acknowledgement section, to have more 
than 10, 15 20 or so participants with input, and the author only acks a 
few folks, including perhaps names that didn't provide a WG LIST input, 
then that may begin to raise questions about the author.   Often you may 
see this separated with the term "Constructive Input."    To me, thats 
bullshit.  You might as well, leave it out. But that's me.

So I think there might be some general guidelines on adding the optional 
acknowledgements.

For me, its generally all or nothing, its not generally nothing. It will 
generally also include the "special" contributor, if any. This a a 
professional pattern with technical writing in my writing experience 
(Not exclusive to the IETF). If this is something he does a lot, you 
might not deem it necessary as it may be considered already part of his 
"job" and character to help you.   There is also individuals, out of the 
engineering respect, I will ask first if they have a problem with the 
acknowledgement.  Some people you need to ask permission. In some cases, 
I asked myself not to be included. I was glad to help, but didn't really 
wish to show endorsement via an ack.

But always, there are ways to acknowledge it, word it, like adding a 
disclaimer that acknowledging so and so does not suggest they endorse 
the document goals.

--
HLS

---

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:55:34 +0000

+1

.. and such contributions may well be reviews that don't change the
substance of the document or add new ideas but result in improvments to
the expression of the ideas or catch mistakes.  These can be just as
vital as extra ideas to making a successful RFC.

IMO it is vital that for reviewing to be successful it has to be
'ego-free'.  The reviewer shouldn't be aiming to catch the authors out
or push his/her prejudices into the document but rather to collectively
improve the document.  So 'ego-free' should mean that the reviewer is
looking for a better document and not a 'puff' in the acknowledgements.
Yes, it is nice to get an acknowledgement of your review work but I'm
not going to go beat up the authors if I don't get it.  In practice, the
reviews that are perhaps least likely to be acknowledged are the ones
which say 'I read it: it was well written and it looked good to me.'
They are very nearly as much work as the ones that say 'It's broken
because...'!

As regards 'history': RFCs record 'state' and not history.  That isn't
to say that recording history in some other place than the fallible
memories of participants and fragmented threads in mailing lists
wouldn't be advantageous not least in avoiding wheels being reinvented
and failures being repeated.  But I have never been involved in a
project that actually even tried to keep a 'design diary' or similar
document.  Probably, mea culpa sometimes! Whatever, it doesn't belong in
the resulting RFC.

Regards,
Elwyn

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:09:43 -0400

Interesting proposal.  I suggest perhaps a different "Contributions" 
section related to IPR considerations, including also good for open 
source/public domain information.

For me, this would be a quick/goto read item after reading a new I-D 
abstract of interest.

Good idea.

--
HLS

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:28:42 -0400

> My habit is to have the document source (and rendered copy) open on my screen as I read and digest comments. If I make a change to the document following someone's comment, I add them to the Acknow…

Joe - 
 
  I believe that your habit is likely the common practice; I've certainly
  done the same when editing.  Note that this does not result in everyone 
  making a comment being included, e.g. if four folks point out something 
  to be fixed, then I'm likely to include the one who actually suggests text,
  or otherwise provides the best summary of the problem.  In my experience,
  reviewers have been quite happy just to see their suggestions acted on, 
  but apparently that is no longer sufficient in some contexts.

/John

Disclaimers: My views alone, although Acknowledgements given to the members 
             of the "ietf" mailing list for their substantial contributions.

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:57:56 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 1:11 AM
> archives, we've got audio recordings of meetings, and we've got the

And it is not enough. A question arose recently as to why the wording in
an RFC was what it was, what it did intend to mean, and while I could
look at the different versions of the I-D and identify the nine month
period in which the change occurred, from the wording in an earlier RFC
to that in the replacement one, nothing else from that time gave any
clue as to why, nor could any remember.  All we know is who was editing
the I-D at the time in question.

Most of the resources you mention are not available from the time in
question so we cannot judge how well we are currently being served until
at some point in the future they are put to the test.  Likely, they will
be found wanting, as our older records have been.

Tom Petch

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:45:58 +0000

RFCs say how, but rarely why.

Lloyd Wood

________________________________________

Elwyn said

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:49:52 -0400

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> acknowledgements, etc.  The work is simply the product of the committee.  I
> would prefer not to go down that path.

I don't see how it is possible for the IETF to copy the IEEE policy at
the WG level. (And I agree that it would not be desirable to do so.)

IEEE standards (at least in IEEE 802) do not have any title page
author(s) but do have the complete list of 802... WG voting members in
the WG that approved the document, then the complete list of IEEE
Sponsor Ballot voters that approved the document, then the complete
list of IEEE Standards Association Board members when the Standards
Board approved the document.

For example, just glancing at IEEE Std. 802.1BR-2012, there is
prefatory information with the following sub-intros under the overall
heading "Participants":

"At the time this standard was approved, the IEEE 802.1 Working Group
had the following voting members:" (So, for example, I am listed
although I don't believe I submitted a comment on that document.)

"The following members of the individual balloting committee voted on
this standard. Balloters may have voted for approval, disapproval, or
abstention."

and

"When the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved this standard on 14 May
2012, it had the following membership:"

The first of these lists specifically distinguishes the WG and task
group Officers and the Editor involved in the document. Note that,
other than perhaps the listing of the Editor, these lists have nothing
to do with who supported or opposed the document or who submitted or
drafted text or comments. They are purely formalistic lists based on
status, although in practice, most of those who commented or drafted
text would be included.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

>                                                           But if the alternative is copying
> every name from every person reported to have commented on the draft in the
> minutes or shown in the archive to have sent an email about the draft into a
> meaningless acknowledgements section, then the pure committee view would
> seem more sensible.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:57:55 +0000

Actually, as there's already a five-author limit on RFCs, acks are already subject to guidance...

Did rfc2223bis expire? Section 2.12 there.

Lloyd Wood

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore [[email-masked]]
Sent: 25 March 2013 16:20
To: Scott Brim
Cc: John C Klensin; [email-masked]; ietf
Subject: Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

Excellent.

Melinda

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:01:55 -0700

> the I-D at the time in question.
Even if you had svn commits that probably wouldn't answer the question 
of why.

Before one heads down the epistemological rathole, aren't there simpler 
questions to be asked?

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:03:29 -0700

I believe the five-author limit is not as strict:
(see, e.g., RFC6550)

Ulrich

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:03:26 +0000

You mean going 'Chatham House rule'?

(i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D recommending how to write acks, I get acked...)

Lloyd Wood

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern [[email-masked]]
Sent: 25 March 2013 16:35
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: Carsten Bormann; Paul Hoffman; ietf
Subject: Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D     "Acknowledgements" sections)

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:50:39 +0000

Hi Lloyd,

> (i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D recommending how to write acks, I get acked...)

Thanks! Yours is the first useful thing anyone's said in this
thread that I recall. (Most previous mails made me groan with
embarrassment that we wrap ourselves around axles like this so
easily, but yours gave me a chuckle, and is hence far more
useful:-)

S.

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:00:01 -0400

On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> (i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D recommending how to write acks, I get acked…)

+1

W

P.S: :-P

--
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
                -- H. L. Mencken

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:58:10 -0600

On 3/25/13 9:35 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00 	Key Words of Conditional Language
>> of Requirements Levels 	2012-07-31 	Expired
>> 
> And, actually, this is more interesting.  I don't follow MANET or
> ROLL, but the 2119 update got some discussion on the IETF list.  If
> we think we have good ideas, most of us listen carefully to the
> discussions and then generate -01 drafts that attempt to
> incorporate the suggestions and deal with the objections.  Here,
> the documents are abandoned at -00.  The author has moved on to
> complaining about how badly the IETF and various of its WGs are
> broken instead of trying to work with the community to refine the
> ideas.
> 
> That has nothing to do with whether the particular contributions in
> MANET should be acknowledged in any particular document.  Had 
> either of the two I-Ds listed above that were addressed to that WG
> gotten traction we might be having a discussion now about who he
> would see fit to acknowledge.   But, instead, we see expired -00
> drafts and a lot of complaints.
> 

Indeed. Thus my subtle suggestion that the original poster complete
some real technical work in the IETF community before making more
suggestions about process.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/