Subject: [Teas] Regarding Acknowledgements in draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet

From: Tarek Saad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 05:42:52 +0000

Adrian,

Thanks for the feedback on draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet! Much appreciated. We just sent out our response to the feedback.

We are starting a separate thread to discuss just the following comment.

Snipped from your email:

***

10.

Thanks to the authors for acknowledging me for the "detailed discussions

that led to Section 3" of this document. On the other hand, no thanks for

failing to acknowledge the material I wrote and that has been included

in this document. This is poor behaviour that should be an embarrassment

to all with their names on the front page. It really makes one think

about who to have conversations with and who to try to help.

***

This comment has caught us by total surprise. We have always given your inputs the highest regard and would continue to do so. We don’t know what has caused this outpour, but we would like to apologize if we have inadvertently caused you any grief or disappointment. We would like to hold ourselves to the highest level of integrity and would ask to be held accountable if there has been any hint of poor conduct/behavior.

We sincerely believe we have taken every chance to acknowledge the collaboration we have had with you on this. We revisited (multiple times) all the communications/emails we’ve had with you, and we are still stumped by this allegation of “poor behavior”.

Section 3 in this document was put together based on the discussions that we have had with you, and we are grateful for that and acknowledge the same in Section 10. If you remember, we have also thanked you and mentioned this collaboration in previous TEAS WG session updates. In the TEAS 111 session, we even stated our plans to incorporate the steps that we compiled together in the document (Please refer to Slide 4 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-teas-07-realizing-network-slices-in-ipmpls-networks-01.pdf).

While it should be acknowledged that the text (bar a few exceptions) was written by you; it should also be acknowledged (and we’re sure you would also agree) that all inputs for this text came from us as you were collecting notes about our solution. We hope you do remember the multiple sessions with us which shaped the PPT slide (from scratch) that ended up being the input for the ASCII drawing and the corresponding text. You may also remember that we urged you to include some aspects of this in the framework document. You took the portions (from the content that we arrived at together) that are relevant to the framework and included it to the framework document. We took the portions that are relevant to the solution that is being proposed by us and included it in our solution document – and we made sure we acknowledge your contribution to Section 3.  Section 3 is meant to illustrate how the solution fits into the architecture. It sure needs to be refined further (as you have pointed out), but it is an integral part of this document.

In hindsight, if there is one thing we could have done differently (and we’ll learn from this), we should have explicitly checked if you would have liked to be listed as a contributor.  The truth is that you had already distanced yourself from this solution (for reasons that only you know) in the months leading up to the publication of revision 04 (which was the first time this section was added to the document). And that led us to believe that you were no longer interested in contributing to it.

We are open to suggestions on your preference to resolve this matter.

It goes without saying, we’d be thrilled if you would like to continue to work on this draft.

Best Regards,

Tarek and Pavan

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 14:03:34 -0000

Thanks for coming back on this point, Tarek,

Our memories of what happened last April are obviously different. However, I
kept copies of all emails and have my notes of our conversations. More
importantly, I have the various versions of the text that I wrote and sent
to you.

There are only three points here:

1.	I wrote text and drew a figure that you have included almost without
change in your document. It would be correct and polite to acknowledge that
contribution not as "discussions" but as "wrote most of the text that forms
Section 3".
2.	If you want to use material that someone writes, you ask their
permission. You will often find they say yes.
3.	The purpose of our discussions in Spring and Summer last year, from
my point of view, was to help me formulate an architecture for inclusion in
Section 6.1 of draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices that accommodated your
aspirations as well as those of others who were talking to me (I mentioned
this at the TEAS meeting at IETF-111). A substantial part of the problem was
the terminology, while the functional steps were also significant. The
result of those discussions led me to write the words that appear in -05 in
October: they, and the figure, derive from the early version that you have
included in your draft, but they (you'll see) don't share many of the same
words (noting that, at the TEAS interim in September, it was noted that
offline discussions had been happening between the authors of
"draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn and related drafts, and
draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet and related drafts" and it was agreed to leave
out the work flow.

So, where to go from here? Well, you have noted my point. I have learnt from
it, and that was valuable for me, so thank you.

Cheers,

Adrian

10. 

*** 

This comment has caught us by total surprise. We have always given your
inputs the highest regard and would continue to do so. We don't know what
has caused this outpour, but we would like to apologize if we have
inadvertently caused you any grief or disappointment. We would like to hold
ourselves to the highest level of integrity and would ask to be held
accountable if there has been any hint of poor conduct/behavior. 

We sincerely believe we have taken every chance to acknowledge the
collaboration we have had with you on this. We revisited (multiple times)
all the communications/emails we've had with you, and we are still stumped
by this allegation of "poor behavior".  

Section 3 in this document was put together based on the discussions that we
have had with you, and we are grateful for that and acknowledge the same in
Section 10. If you remember, we have also thanked you and mentioned this
collaboration in previous TEAS WG session updates. In the TEAS 111 session,
we even stated our plans to incorporate the steps that we compiled together
in the document (Please refer to Slide 4 of
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-teas-07-reali
zing-network-slices-in-ipmpls-networks-01.pdf>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-teas-07-realiz
ing-network-slices-in-ipmpls-networks-01.pdf). 

While it should be acknowledged that the text (bar a few exceptions) was
written by you; it should also be acknowledged (and we're sure you would
also agree) that all inputs for this text came from us as you were
collecting notes about our solution. We hope you do remember the multiple
sessions with us which shaped the PPT slide (from scratch) that ended up
being the input for the ASCII drawing and the corresponding text. You may
also remember that we urged you to include some aspects of this in the
framework document. You took the portions (from the content that we arrived
at together) that are relevant to the framework and included it to the
framework document. We took the portions that are relevant to the solution
that is being proposed by us and included it in our solution document - and
we made sure we acknowledge your contribution to Section 3.  Section 3 is
meant to illustrate how the solution fits into the architecture. It sure
needs to be refined further (as you have pointed out), but it is an integral
part of this document. 

In hindsight, if there is one thing we could have done differently (and
we'll learn from this), we should have explicitly checked if you would have
liked to be listed as a contributor.  The truth is that you had already
distanced yourself from this solution (for reasons that only you know) in
the months leading up to the publication of revision 04 (which was the first
time this section was added to the document). And that led us to believe
that you were no longer interested in contributing to it.  

It goes without saying, we'd be thrilled if you would like to continue to
work on this draft.  

Best Regards, 

Tarek and Pavan

---

From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 04:03:38 -0600

Adrian, Hi!

Thanks for your time and consideration in sharing that.

And yes, we agree that we have a different interpretation of the events
(/emails/notes) from early last year --  while we believe the text produced
was a by-product of a collaborative effort, your view is that it was an
individual effort.

We will also do our best to learn from this and consider the matter closed.

Best Regards,
- Pavan and Tarek
ps: Regarding point 2 below -- when someone spends hours collaborating with
you on producing text and ask (out of courtesy) if it is okay to include it
in their document, you either respond with an ack or a nack. You will often
find that ghosting them leaves things open for interpretation. It is a good
thing that you keep copies of all emails -- when you get a chance, do look
for an email dated June 1st from Tarek where we asked if it was okay to add
text in the document (and, also a follow-up prod dated June 23rd); this was
before the TEAS 111 meeting in July where we explicitly stated our
intention to add this content and heard no objections.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 8:04 AM Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Our memories of what happened last April are obviously different. However,
> I kept copies of all emails and have my notes of our conversations. More
>    1. I wrote text and drew a figure that you have included almost
>    without change in your document. It would be correct and polite to
>    acknowledge that contribution not as “discussions” but as “wrote most of
>    the text that forms Section 3”.
>    this at the TEAS meeting at IETF-111). A substantial part of the problem
>    was the terminology, while the functional steps were also significant. The
>    included in your draft, but they (you’ll see) don’t share many of the same
>    offline discussions had been happening between the authors of “draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn
>    and related drafts, and draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet and related drafts”
>    and it was agreed to leave out the work flow.
>
>
>
> So, where to go from here? Well, you have noted my point. I have learnt
> from it, and that was valuable for me, so thank you.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> 10.
>
>
>
> inputs the highest regard and would continue to do so. We don’t know what
> all the communications/emails we’ve had with you, and we are still stumped
> by this allegation of “poor behavior”.
>
>
>
> Section 3 in this document was put together based on the discussions that
> we have had with you, and we are grateful for that and acknowledge the same
> in Section 10. If you remember, we have also thanked you and mentioned this
> in the document (*Please refer to Slide 4 of*
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-teas-07-realizing-network-slices-in-ipmpls-networks-01.pdf
> ).
>
>
>
> written by you; it should also be acknowledged (and we’re sure you would
> that is being proposed by us and included it in our solution document – and
> needs to be refined further (as you have pointed out), but it is an
> integral part of this document.
>
>
>
> we’ll learn from this), we should have explicitly checked if you would have
> the months leading up to the publication of revision 04 (which was the
> first time this section was added to the document). And that led us to
> believe that you were no longer interested in contributing to it.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>