Subject: Proposal for an IESG Statement on Editorship and Authorship

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:58:26 +0100

The IESG is discussing about issuing a statement on editorship and
authorship of IETF documents, following discussions and proposals raised
by some WG chairs. We would like this to be a tool and a reference to
help the WG chairs and the community rather than a set of strict
guidelines or definitions. We are sending this version of the proposed
statement to the wgchairs list to get feedback about the opportunity of
such a statement, and about the proposed content. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------

This IESG Statement clarifies practices relating to authors, editors, 
and contributors in RFCs. The intent of this note is to set up 
expectations about the authoring process and who can expect to find 
their names in a document. However, this note should not be read as a 
binding rule as there are exceptional situations that may demand other 
approaches.

Authorship is important in RFCs in order to provide credit to 
individuals who have chosen to work hard to publish a specification, to 
create a sense of personal responsibility for ensuring that the 
documents are of high quality, and to simply inform who the originators 
of the specification are. Authorship also implies certain legal and 
copyright responsibilities, and places demands on the authors to respond

to practical issues during the publication process (such as AUTH48).

ROLE OF AFFILIATIONS

Being listed as an author, editor, contributor or otherwise acknowledged

in the document does not indicate endorsement from the author's 
employer. Individuals are named in IETF RFCs in order to acknowledge 
their personal contributions. Affiliation is listed for information
only.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING CORRECT ATTRIBUTION

The authors and editors are responsible for ensuring that the list of 
authors, editors, contributors and other acknowledgments are 
appropriate. For working group documents, the editor serves at the 
pleasure of the working group chair. Working group chairs may also 
assist the editors and authors in questions relating to proper 
attribution of additional authors and other contributors.

FORMAT

Editors and their affiliation should be mentioned on the front page of a

published RFC.

Authors and their affiliation are usually mentioned on the front page of

a published RFC. An exception are the cases when the number of editors 
and authors exceeds five.

Editors and Authors are listed in the Authors section of the RFC which 
should include their contact information. The RFC Editor provides 
guidelines about the contact information to be included in an RFC in the

RFC Document Style http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style. 
It is strongly recommended that a working email address be provided so 
that people can contact the authors regarding the document.

The names of other contributors can be included in the "Acknowledgments"

section of the RFC. Significant contributions are often listed in a 
separate "Contributors" section. Editors and authors of the previous
versions 
of the document should be mentioned among contributors unless they are
already mentioned as editors or authors of the current version. 

CHOOSING BETWEEN LEVELS OF ATTRIBUTION

The following rough guidelines may be helpful in deciding how to 
classify different contributions.

An editor is charged with the task of composing the document, combining 
input from other authors and contributors, and often writes significant 
parts of the text within the document. However, the editor may not 
always be the initial developer of the idea, or even have made 
significant technical contributions to the specification. An editor in 
an IETF working group typically has other duties as well, such as being 
involved in working group discussions of issues remaining in the
document.

An author is someone who has contributed substantial amount of text to 
the specification, or provided basic ideas in the specification. What 
constitutes as substantial amount is a judgment call, but typically this

would involve a significant fraction of the entire document, such as 
writing a major section.

Contributors are people who have provided input that made an impact in 
the document, but not significant enough to qualify as an author or 
editor. A contributor might have provided, for instance, a detailed 
review of the document or a few paragraphs of text.

Mere agreement or support for the document should never constitute a 
reason to be listed in some of the above roles.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:08:35 -0700

> such a statement, and about the proposed content. 

<snip/>

Seems reasonable to me.

Peter

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

---

From: "Dave Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:21:33 -0500

> Seems reasonable to me.

+1

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:38:54 -0500

+1

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:59:28 -0600

I think it is good in general.

The bar for "Contributor" seems fairly low, though. I'm a little surprised that a "detailed review" might be enough to get a contributor credit. I have typically seen things like that in an "Acknowledgements" section.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:31:16 -0500

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 09:58:26AM +0100, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> pleasure of the working group chair. 

This is something I've heard claimed -- I always believed it in fact
-- but it's not actually what RFC 2418 says.  §6.3 of 2418 says that
the WG appoints the editor, and appointing editors is not actually
called out in the list of Chair responsibilities.

Whether this means that the note or RFC 2418 needs to be revised, I
can't say, but they can't both be right.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:58:24 -0600

Hi, Andrew,

OK, I'm almost sure the IESG is issuing a statement instead of revising 2418 
because that would require revising 2418... :D

But someday, if we ever do, it might be nice to revisit the difference 
between authors and editors. The most recent working group chair training 
that I've seen (and I used to give this tutorial) is a lot stronger on the 
difference between authors and editors than 2418 is. IMO.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:59:32 -0600

I agree with Ben on current practice. As a Gen-ART reviewer and RAI-ART 
reviewer, I'm almost always mentioned in an acknowlegements section, and NOT 
in a contributors section...

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Working Group Chairs" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal for an IESG Statement on Editorship and Authorship

The bar for "Contributor" seems fairly low, though. I'm a little surprised 
that a "detailed review" might be enough to get a contributor credit. I have 
typically seen things like that in an "Acknowledgements" section.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:00:33 -0500

I encourage the issuance of such a statement.

It would be particularly useful to give more clarity to the case of editors
of revisions of documents. A few of the RFCs that I have edited/authored
have been revisions. In such cases, generally the WG chair(s) have already
tried to contact the previous authors, who would naturally be the ones to do
a revision, and either been unable to contact them or found that they do not
have the time/interest to work on a revision. I generally also try to
contact he previous authors and, if they are available to do pretty much
anything to help with the revision, I list them on the front page. I believe
that normal IETF practice in cases where the previous authors make no
additional contribution to the revision is that the revision editor is the
only person listed on the front page, although special contributor credit is
given to the previous authors/editors. This is what the statement currently
says, although I believe it could be stronger:

"... Editors and authors of the previous versions
of the document should be mentioned among contributors unless they are
already mentioned as editors or authors of the current version. ..."

However, in at least one case I was directed by the working group chair(s)
to list the previous authors, even though they were not contactable,
resulting in AUTH48 delays and a requirement for the AD to exercise their
exceptional authority to approve RFC publication despite inability to
contact or get approval from a first page listed author. In fact, I was
directed to put my name last on the first page and the tone of the messages
I got the WG chair(s) was that they thought I was trying to steal credit or
something, rather than just following normal IETF practice as I thought.

I suggest the sentence quoted above be changed to:

"... Editors and authors of the previous versions
of the document should not be listed as an editor or author unless they have
made some contribution to the revised version but they should always be
listed among contributors. ..."

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-634-2066 (home)
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
[email-masked]

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:37:46 -0700

On 12/18/09 7:59 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> The bar for "Contributor" seems fairly low, though. I'm a little
> surprised that a "detailed review" might be enough to get a
> contributor credit. I have typically seen things like that in an
> "Acknowledgements" section.

Good point. Usually a contributor is someone who has provided text,
code, test results, or the like.

Also, this document might want to clarify the difference (if any)
between a "Contributor" to a document and a contributor in the sense of
someone who has made an "IETF Contribution" as defined in RFC 3978.

/psa

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:03:36 -0500

looks good.

I agree that a reviewer should be under acknowledgements, not
contributor.

I think they should be listed as contributor if, as part of the review
process, they provided substantial assistance in modifying the text or
in correcting the expert-reviewed portions of the specification (such
as a MIB design, XML Schema, or ABNF specification).

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 3:58 AM
> To: Working Group Chairs
> Subject: Proposal for an IESG Statement on Editorship and Authorship
> 

> RFC Document Style 
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:07:43 +0200

Peter, Ben,

> someone who has made an "IETF Contribution" as defined in RFC 3978.

Right. What we had in mind when writing this part of the text was that 
there are authors, editors, and other contributors. Using the word in 
the 3978 sense. That's why the note said earlier:

> separate "Contributors" section.
Is this explanation enough to make it clearer, or do we want more?

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:13:25 +0200

Donald,

> It would be particularly useful to give more clarity to the case of 
> editors of revisions of documents.

I agree. This would be very helpful. As you've seen, we have struggled 
with this at times.

> A few of the RFCs that I have edited/authored have been revisions. In 
> such cases, generally the WG chair(s) have already tried to contact 
> the previous authors, who would naturally be the ones to do a 
> revision, and either been unable to contact them or found that they do 
> not have the time/interest to work on a revision. I generally also try 
> to contact he previous authors and, if they are available to do pretty 
> much anything to help with the revision, I list them on the front 
> page. I believe that normal IETF practice in cases where the previous 
> authors make no additional contribution to the revision is that the 
> revision editor is the only person listed on the front page, although 
> special contributor credit is given to the previous authors/editors.

I think I've seen us retain the full author list in many cases as well, 
just adding the new editor.

I've seen cases where we started out with the new editor's name NOT at 
the top at all, because we believed the necessary changes were minor. Of 
course, at the end of the process the changes never were minor anymore, 
so I'm not aware of any RFC actually going out like this.

> This is what the statement currently says, although I believe it could 
> be stronger:
>
> However, in at least one case I was directed by the working group 
> chair(s) to list the previous authors, even though they were not 
> contactable, resulting in AUTH48 delays and a requirement for the AD 
> to exercise their exceptional authority to approve RFC publication 
> despite inability to contact or get approval from a first page listed 
> author. In fact, I was directed to put my name last on the first page 
> and the tone of the messages I got the WG chair(s) was that they 
> thought I was trying to steal credit or something, rather than just 
> following normal IETF practice as I thought.
>
> of the document should not be listed as an editor or author unless 
> they have made some contribution to the revised version but they 
> should always be listed among contributors. ..."

I don't have a problem with this, but this would be a policy change and 
requires some discussion. (One issue: If I detect a minor bug in some 
key RFC, can I re-issue it under my own name, correcting the bug?)

Jari

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:12:52 -0500

--On Friday, December 18, 2009 09:59 -0600 Spencer Dawkins
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I agree with Ben on current practice. As a Gen-ART reviewer
> and RAI-ART reviewer, I'm almost always mentioned in an
> acknowlegements section, and NOT in a contributors section...

Another argument for this is that the Trust believes that
listing as a Contributor implies a potential claim to copyright
in the document that must be explicitly dealt with.   As long as
RFC 5378 stays in effect, there is presumably no problem with
new documents (or even new Contributors) but, if a new version
came along that again required a different rights grant, we'd be
back in the soup.

When dividing lines between acknowledgment and contributors are
drawn, the latter should, IMO, contain no more people than are
necessary... and necessity arises with the actual contribution
of text, not reviews, comments, ideas, etc.

best,
    john

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:21:41 -0600

On Dec 18, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:

> Right. What we had in mind when writing this part of the text was that there are authors, editors, and other contributors. Using the word in the 3978 sense. That's why the note said earlier:
> 
>> section of the RFC. Significant contributions are often listed in a separate "Contributors" section.

I think it's good enough.  My main concern was that the statement not promote reviewers to a higher contribution status than people would ordinarily expect to give them. Simply not mentioning them preserves the status quo, which I think is appropriate here.

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:54:05 -0500

Is there a reason why we need both acknowledgements and contributor
sections? Why not one acknowledgement section, and the editor can
specify in general terms what their contribution was? 

or is the distinction to explicitly point out the ideas contributed,
in a rfc 3978 sense, for IPR purposes? I think that might be a
slippery slope.

dbh

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 12:08 PM
> To: Peter Saint-Andre
> Cc: Working Group Chairs; Romascanu,Dan (Dan)

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:03:15 -0800

> called out in the list of Chair responsibilities.

Actually, it is, in Section 6.1:

   The Working Group Chair is concerned with making forward progress
   through a fair and open process, and has wide discretion in the
   conduct of WG business.  The Chair must ensure that a number of tasks
   are performed, either directly or by others assigned to the tasks.

   The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions,
   on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working
   group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the
   IETF. 

Document Editors are members of the WG staff.
 
> can't say, but they can't both be right.

True, the alternative being that you are wrong...

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:24:48 -0500

--On Friday, December 18, 2009 12:54:05 PM -0500 David Harrington 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> sections?

No, there's not, and neither existing practice nor the proposed IESG 
statement requires one.  However, separate contributor sections are 
sometimes used, and mentioning this fact does not seem out of line.

-- Jeff

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:30:28 -0800

Hi -

I'd read 2418 section 6.3's specifics as taking precedence over
the generalities outlined in 6.1.  If the intent was for the editors
to serve at the pleasure of the WG chair (even recognizing that this
is in fact how things generally have worked) section 6.3's text on
editor selection makes no sense.

Randy

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:30:46 -0500

> Document Editors are members of the WG staff.

Oh, good point.

> True, the alternative being that you are wrong...

It'd hardly be the first time.  I've been wrong 40 times today!

A    

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:56:48 -0800

> editor selection makes no sense.

It makes total sense (even though that's not normally how it really works): the WG "selects" an editor, the Chair "appoints" them (if by no other means than accepting an offer).  The question is what happens when an editor ceases (or refuses) to change the document in question to accurately reflect WG consensus as judged by the Chair(s).  The answer is that the editor should be replaced by the Chair(s) with someone who will actually do the job.  It's not a popularity contest, it's a staffing question.

...

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:59:28 -0800

> It'd hardly be the first time.  I've been wrong 40 times today!

I just woke up, but I'm working on it ;-)

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:38:07 +0200

Jeffrey, Dave,
 
> sometimes used, and mentioning this fact does not seem out of line.

I think its actually fairly common.

Jari

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:04:03 -0800 (PST)

Hi David,
  Contributor section is needed in case when the document is produced by a design team. Design teams are usually crowded, 9-10 people and the design team lead usually becomes the editor and the only author. The design team members are listed in the contributor  section. Sometimes such a section is called addtional authors section.

I am for keeping contributor (additional authors) section and acknowledgement section has a different purpose. 

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
> From: David Harrington <[email-masked]>
> To: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>; Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Working Group Chairs <[email-masked]>; "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Fri, December 18, 2009 11:54:05 AM

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:52:25 +0100

Dan,

thanks to the IESG for addressing this topic with a clarification statement.  
Like some others, maybe more, I'm a bit confused by the competing roles
of editors and authors for working group documents in particular.
RFC 2418 defines the role of a Document Editor (6.3). However, it says
"A working group generally designates a person or persons to serve as the
 Editor for a particular document", which suggests that a WG document
could exceptionally handled by some other entity.  RFC 2418 also mentions
authors (6.1, 8), but does not distinguish their role from the editors'.
So, my reading has always been that as soon as someone has accepted the
responsibility for a WG document, they are "document editors", regardless
of whether or not they had their name on the I-D at the time it was
adopted by the WG.  On the other hand, while formally speaking of editors,
I cannot remember a case where we would have explictly added this label
to the editor's name on the front page or otherwise.

A cursory look at the RFC index for RFCs 3000 and later shows that "Editor"
labels have been increasingly used (not all Editors are marked as such in the
index, though):
	3xxx 101/989    10%
	4xxx 176/974    18%
	5xxx 141/657    21%

The practice probably varies much across WGs or areas and of course the
above sample includes non-WG documents.

> copyright responsibilities, and places demands on the authors to respond

While RFC 5378 only mentions "document authors", even though they may
be "editors" in fact (5378 may serve as a self referencing example),
the considerations in this paragraph would also apply to editors, I believe.

> and authors exceeds five.

Are "should be" and "are usually" to be read as equivalent in strength?

> would involve a significant fraction of the entire document, such as 

So, for the likely case of someone (or a group of people) writing an I-D,
asking for WG adoption, being accepted and appointed as Document Editor(s),
which of the above would take precedence?  How would these considerations
relate to the definition of "Document Editor" in RFC 2418 and the almost
exclusive use of "author" terminology on the side of the RFC publication?

-Peter

---

From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:42:17 +0200

- Why is this a should rather than a must ?
  Is this referring to 
  1) the case where there are authors but not editors, or
  2) the first page containing no individuals
    (for example, attributing to a body of individuals, such as the IAB), or
  3) mentioning the editor but not their affiliation ?

- In addition to preferring the simpler wording "An exception occurs when the ..."
how can we make clear that this exception itself is a SHOULD NOT, not a MUST NOT ?

- actually, it would be nice to say something about the stability of 
that email address, but I guess that is hard to guarantee these days.

versions of the document should be mentioned among contributors unless they are

- I agree that there should be separate Contributors and Acknowledgements sections.
Perhaps we can condense all this to a single attribution section with
3 subsections, 1) authors contact information, 2) contributors, and 3) acknowledgements.
Perhaps we could also remind document authors to acknowledge the document shepherd
who frequently puts in a lot of effort, even if this effort does not result in
a significant amount of text.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:13:37 +0100

> From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 8:25 PM
> To: David Harrington; 'Jari Arkko'; 'Peter Saint-Andre'
> Cc: 'Working Group Chairs'; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email-masked]
> --On Friday, December 18, 2009 12:54:05 PM -0500 David 
> Harrington <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> No, there's not, and neither existing practice nor the 
> proposed IESG statement requires one.  However, separate 
> contributor sections are sometimes used, and mentioning this 
> fact does not seem out of line.
> 
> -- Jeff
>

Right. I believe that the intention here (as with other matters) was not
to change the policy, but to rather document and clarify the existing
practices leaving enough freedom to the WG chairs to decide what of the
existing practices is fit to the specific case. 

Dan

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:21:11 +0100

Donald,
 
I understand the problem that you are trying to clarify, but I am not
sure that what you are proposing is the universally accepted practice.
We are trying with this statement to provide guidance and clarify the
terminology and best practices, rather than change processes. Wherever
then is more than one way to do things in practice we would prefer to
leave to the WG chairs the freedom to pick one of the options in
accordance to the IETF rules and common sense. This seems to be the case
here. 
 
Dan

________________________________

	From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 6:01 PM
	To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
	Cc: Working Group Chairs
	Subject: Re: Proposal for an IESG Statement on Editorship and
Authorship

	It would be particularly useful to give more clarity to the case
of editors of revisions of documents. A few of the RFCs that I have
edited/authored have been revisions. In such cases, generally the WG
chair(s) have already tried to contact the previous authors, who would
naturally be the ones to do a revision, and either been unable to
contact them or found that they do not have the time/interest to work on
a revision. I generally also try to contact he previous authors and, if
they are available to do pretty much anything to help with the revision,
I list them on the front page. I believe that normal IETF practice in
cases where the previous authors make no additional contribution to the
revision is that the revision editor is the only person listed on the
front page, although special contributor credit is given to the previous
authors/editors. This is what the statement currently says, although I
believe it could be stronger:

	"... Editors and authors of the previous versions
	of the document should be mentioned among contributors unless
they are
	already mentioned as editors or authors of the current version.
..."

	However, in at least one case I was directed by the working
group chair(s) to list the previous authors, even though they were not
contactable, resulting in AUTH48 delays and a requirement for the AD to
exercise their exceptional authority to approve RFC publication despite
inability to contact or get approval from a first page listed author. In
fact, I was directed to put my name last on the first page and the tone
of the messages I got the WG chair(s) was that they thought I was trying
to steal credit or something, rather than just following normal IETF
practice as I thought.

	"... Editors and authors of the previous versions
	of the document should not be listed as an editor or author
unless they have made some contribution to the revised version but they
should always be listed among contributors. ..."

	Thanks,
	Donald

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:07:34 -0500

--On Friday, December 18, 2009 12:54 -0500 David Harrington
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Is there a reason why we need both acknowledgements and
> contributor sections? Why not one acknowledgement section, and
> the editor can specify in general terms what their
> contribution was? 
> 
> or is the distinction to explicitly point out the ideas
> contributed, in a rfc 3978 sense, for IPR purposes? I think
> that might be a slippery slope.

"Contributors" was introduced as part of trying to draw a firm
line against documents with ten or even 20 or more authors at
the top of the page.    It permitted the RFC Editor to say "if
you think there are lots of authors, designate the one or two
responsible editors at the top of the document and list everyone
else as contributors".   It is common, but not required, to list
contact information for contributors as well as
authors/editors... that is never done for folks whose names
appear only in acknowledgments.

   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:42:16 -0500

Yaakov,

While the IESG can, in principle, specify anything it likes with
the format of I-Ds that are intended for them to process, the
format, section headings, section ordering, etc., of RFCs are
the responsibility (and within the authority of) the RFC Editor.
I think is it just great that Dan and the IESG want to provide
more precise advice to authors (or editors) of IETF Stream
documents about how information should be arranged within the
RFC Editor-specified sections.  But let's not accidentally slide
into trying to redesign the RFC format and structure.  That just
takes us down a rathole that has been, IMO, too well explored
already.

    john 

--On Sunday, December 20, 2009 15:42 +0200 Yaakov Stein
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Editors and their affiliation should be mentioned on the front
> page of a published RFC.
> 
>     (for example, attributing to a body of individuals, such
> as the IAB), or   3) mentioning the editor but not their
> affiliation ?
> 
> 
> Authors and their affiliation are usually mentioned on the
> front page of a published RFC. An exception are the cases when
> the number of editors  and authors exceeds five.
> 
> - In addition to preferring the simpler wording "An exception
> occurs when the ..." how can we make clear that this exception
> itself is a SHOULD NOT, not a MUST NOT ?
> 
> It is strongly recommended that a working email address be
> provided so  that people can contact the authors regarding the
> document.
> 
> - actually, it would be nice to say something about the
> stability of  that email address, but I guess that is hard to
> guarantee these days.
> 
> The names of other contributors can be included in the
> "Acknowledgments" section of the RFC. Significant
> contributions are often listed in a  separate "Contributors"
> section. Editors and authors of the previous versions of the
> document should be mentioned among contributors unless they are
> - I agree that there should be separate Contributors and
> Acknowledgements sections. Perhaps we can condense all this to
> a single attribution section with 3 subsections, 1) authors
> contact information, 2) contributors, and 3) acknowledgements.
> Perhaps we could also remind document authors to acknowledge
> the document shepherd who frequently puts in a lot of effort,
> even if this effort does not result in a significant amount of
> text.
> 
> 
>

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:22:29 -0500

>editor selection makes no sense.

Going back to Spencer's maybe-sarcastic comment about the IESG not wanting to revise 2418: this has been a sore point in about half the WG's I have chaired. One specific case was "You can't decide against me by yourself: you need to get Working Group consensus".

Given that a logical reading of 2418 can go either way, it would be really nice for the IESG statement to clarify how they believe their statement is in conformance with 2418. (It would be even nicer if 2418 was actually revised, but that doesn't seem imminent.)

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:42:19 -0500

Dan,

OK. But if there is a wide range of practices perhaps it would be good to
note that so people who happen to have only encountered one practice will
not make unwarranted assumptions.

Presumably there is a reason that those listed at the top right of the first
page are supposed to approved during AUTH48. Personally, I don't think a
former author/editor who cannot be contacted should be listed on the front
page, even for a trivial revision, since I think it implies they still
support the document. They might have changed their mind, but you can't tell
if you can't contact them.

Thanks,
Donald

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
<[email-masked]>wrote:

>  Donald,
>
> I understand the problem that you are trying to clarify, but I am not sure
> that what you are proposing is the universally accepted practice. We are
> trying with this statement to provide guidance and clarify the terminology
> and best practices, rather than change processes. Wherever then is more than
> one way to do things in practice we would prefer to leave to the WG chairs
> the freedom to pick one of the options in accordance to the IETF rules and
> common sense. This seems to be the case here.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Donald Eastlake [mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 18, 2009 6:01 PM
> *To:* Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> *Cc:* Working Group Chairs
> *Subject:* Re: Proposal for an IESG Statement on Editorship and Authorship
>
> of the document should not be listed as an editor or author unless they
> have made some contribution to the revised version but they should always be

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:56:45 -0600

Just following on here...

> Going back to Spencer's maybe-sarcastic comment about the IESG not wanting 
> to revise 2418: this has been a sore point in about half the WG's I have 
> chaired. One specific case was "You can't decide against me by yourself: 
> you need to get Working Group consensus".
>
> Given that a logical reading of 2418 can go either way, it would be really 
> nice for the IESG statement to clarify how they believe their statement is 
> in conformance with 2418. (It would be even nicer if 2418 was actually 
> revised, but that doesn't seem imminent.)

Doing my best to limit sarcasm now ;-)

We are tripping over some obvious sources of hurt feelings in this thread - 
like needing to switch editors, and needing to remove people from the front 
page of a -bis draft. I would not mind having some cover from the IESG in 
these situations - it's great to give flexibility almost all the time, but 
if people think they could have gotten a better deal in another area, or 
even in another working group in the same area, in these situations, that 
sounds like situation that would be better to head off.

As a Gen-ART reviewer, I've seen several -bis drafts with editors struggling 
with the "what do I do with a key contributor to the original RFC who isn't 
even on the working group mailing list now?" question. Some have retired, 
and some have even passed on, so involving them in AUTH48 is problematic, 
but the editors aren't sure how hard they are supposed to work to contact 
the (still-living) former authors.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:17:19 +0100

Repeating a comment that I made already earlier when this
was discussed inside IESG:

If the goal is to clarify the current situation, it certainly doesn't
help that this text uses the word "author" in different sense than the
RFC Editor (who calls everyone listed on the front page an "author";
one or more of the authors can *also* be editors, but the only 
"editor" that is not also an author is the RFC Editor :-),
and "contributor" in quite different sense than RFC 5378 (an
important RFC for authors and contributors).

Also, the text does not even really describe the current situation 
well (it's not common to remove names from the front page, so
realistically speaking, many drafts list people who did not 
write significant fractions of the text). While the current 
situation may not be perfect, I do not believe this is an area
where creating more detailed rules is useful.

Best regards,
Pasi

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of ext Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: 18 December, 2009 10:58
> To: Working Group Chairs
> "Acknowledgments"