[rfc-i] [xml2rfc] Front-page authors versus authors...

Henrik Levkowetz henrik at levkowetz.com
Fri Oct 31 08:18:19 PDT 2008


(Cc:ing rfc-interest, too -- this was previously sent on the xml2rfc list)

----

Bob,

On 2008-10-30 20:46 Bob Braden said the following:

> Mary,
> 
> Yes, the authors (ie those listed on page 1) are the people who are 
> (presumed to
> be) the adults responsible for publication of the document, i.e, the people 
> who
> must sign off at AUTH48 time, and to whom the Fickle Finger points when
> someone discovers an egregious error and submits an errata report.
> 
> But pulling the author list from the "Author's Address" section is clearly 
> wrong,
> considering the discussion.

This sounds like an unexpected policy change.  Suddenly we (and by we
I mean both people and tools) are to assume that people listed in an
"Authors' Addresses" section aren't necessarily authors?

That 1) sounds wrong to me; and 2) breaks common understanding of the state of
things up to now; and 3) if this is a policy change it should be more widely
discussed before being made effective.  I know of at least 2 tools which will
have to be changed to handle this if it is enforced, and there are probably more.


	Henrik


> Note that nobody can be "contacted for any updates to the doc", because
> RFCs are never updated, once published.
> 
> Bob Braden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden at ISI.EDU]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:56 AM
>> To: dcrocker at bbiw.net
>> Cc: xml2rfc at xml.resource.org; housley at vigilsec.com; Barnes, Mary
>> (RICH2:AR00); rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
>> Subject: Fwd: [xml2rfc] Front-page authors versus authors...
>>
>>
>> Dave and Spencer,
>>
>> This discussion is based upon a fallacy, I am afraid.  What you are
>> calling th "authors section" (there is no such thing) is really the
>> "authors' addresses"
>> section.  This has been discussed extensively in the past, and I believe
>> it is well documented in 2223bis and on the RFC Editor web page under
>> policies.
>> The RFC Editor believes that Jon, despite his general wisdom, misnamed
>> this section; it should be "Contact Information", as that is its
>> purpose.  The only list of authors is on the top right of the front
>> page.
>>
>> The policy is to allow considerable freedom on what contact info is
>> available...
>> generally, the more the better, from the viewpoint of a reader with a
>> question.
>> So the "contact info/authors' addresses" section may include people who
>> are listed only as contributors, if it seems useful to do so.
>>
>> We hope this clarifies the situation.
>>
>> Bob Braden
>>
>>
>>
>>>> From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
>>>> Date: October 29, 2008 5:08:33 PM PDT
>>>> To: xml2rfc at xml.resource.org
>>>> Cc: Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com>, Mary Barnes
>>>> <mary.barnes at nortel.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Front-page authors versus authors...
>>>> Reply-To: dcrocker at bbiw.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>>>>> Maybe everyone knows this but me and Ben Campbell, but it turns out
>>>>> that it's just fine to have more authors in the authors section than
>>>>> appear on the front page.
>>>>>
>>>>> This popped up in a Gen-ART review, but we've checked with the RFC
>>>>> Editor, and that's actually OK.
>>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> I'm having an increasing feeling that this whole topic has gotten far
>>>> too complicated.  One of the features of the RFC documentation is the
>>>> simplicity of its basic template.  Differential author lists is not
>>>> simple.
>>>>
>>>> At base, RFCs are supposed to reflect IETF processes which are
>>>> supposed to be group efforts.  Although some RFCs are individual
>>>> efforts and/or completely independent of the IETF, the RFC series is
>>>> based on the needs of the IETF community.
>>>>
>>>> This latest point about splitting the author lists sounds as if the
>>>> mere presence of a technical capability is being used to permit
>>>> something that doesn't make much sense, in terms of reader
>>>> information.
>>>>
>>>> What the heck does it mean to have one listing of authors be a
>>>> superset of the other?  What is the compelling need for this
>>>> complication?
>>>>
>>>> Carried further, other than individual submissions, all IETF documents
>>>> are a group effort and, therefore, all authors theoretically qualify
>>>> as editors, not independent authors.  We tend to limit use of the
>>>> (ed.) tag to those situations that need to emphasize the presumably
>>>> more-constrained role of the author.  But only to emphasize the point.
>>>>
>>>> Without referring to xml2rfc details, can someone describe the author
>>>> listing model that we believe can and should be supported?
>>>>
>>>> d/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>    Dave Crocker
>>>>    Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>>>    bbiw.net
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xml2rfc mailing list
>>>> xml2rfc at lists.xml.resource.org
>>>> http://lists.xml.resource.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc
>>>
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>
>>>> Date: October 29, 2008 1:12:58 PM PDT
>>>> To: Spencer Dawkins <spencer at wonderhamster.org>
>>>> Cc: Ben Campbell <ben at estacado.net>, xml2rfc at xml.resource.org, Russ
>>>> Housley <housley at vigilsec.com>, Mary Barnes <mary.barnes at nortel.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Front-page authors versus authors...
>>>>
>>>> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>>>> Maybe everyone knows this but me and Ben Campbell, but it turns out
>>>> that it's just fine to have more authors in the authors section than
>>>> appear on the front page.
>>>>
>>>> This popped up in a Gen-ART review, but we've checked with the RFC
>>>> Editor, and that's actually OK. The requirement is that if you appear
>>>> on the front page, you appear in the author section, but there is no
>>>> requirement that names in the author section appear on the front
>>>> section.
>>>>
>>>> The cause was a merger of two drafts with non-overlapping author lists
>>>> into one draft.
>>>>
>>>> It also turns out that you can get the same semi-effect by including
>>>> "additional" authors in the address mark-up. This is a hack, but
>>>> there's a market for something like "role=authorsec" ("appears only in
>>>> the authors section").
>>>>
>>>> Is this remotely reasonable? Doable?
>>>>
>>>> Russ thought it was reasonable for me to ask you guys about this.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell, the xml2rfc crowd is waiting for a final word
>>>> about what *exactly* would be allowed, and what wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding was that the Authors Section should reflect what's on
>>>> the front page, but an additional section containing more Contact
>>>> Information for contributors would be ok.
>>>>
>>>> BR, Julian
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xml2rfc mailing list
>>>> xml2rfc at lists.xml.resource.org
>>>> http://lists.xml.resource.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc
>>>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc mailing list
> xml2rfc at lists.xml.resource.org
> http://lists.xml.resource.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc
> 




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list