Hi Robert,
You remind me of myself when reviewing a draft within a WG and that author did not like to see my name acked in the WG doc as he thinks that doc is his doc not the ietf-wg, so I requested an appeal on that which was not worth it but
I just done that so that author should know that mostly know doc-user will remember him or me in this world but only the ones who we treat nicely will always remember. Or reminded of one draft I wrote and one reviewer did not want his name acked in my doc proposed to the WG. I realised that some one will never become important or less if included in a publication or excluded, only will become important if they do the right thing, because in the future we will all be dead and maybe also those publications.
However, ACKs are important for the publications to capture the reviewers of the RFCs, because in the end those ACKed can be a reference of many discussions and can be a source of information regarding such doc/author.
Best Regards
AB
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 6:41 PM Robert Moskowitz <rgm=40labs.htt-consult.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/9/25 12:11 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I think that WG chairs need more training. The acknowledgement section in
> RFCs is really the only public carrot that currently have, and we do not use
> that very consistently. Maybe that's a bug.
> This goes beyond meeting selection concerns and whether or not they can physically attend.
Once upon a time I had my start in the IETF. With TN3270E. You would
never know that I worked that group through to our RFCs as the chair.
No mention of me. We did not do things that way back then. Then I was
part of the 3rd pair of co-chairs for IPsec. That was a trip! That
group ate up chairs. No acks.
Authors and ADs should see to it that chairs at least get ACKs on the
RFCs they pulled out of their workgroups.
