[rfc-i] On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and overload.

SM sm at resistor.net
Tue Sep 20 12:43:55 PDT 2011

Hi Fred,
At 10:56 20-09-2011, Fred Baker wrote:
>I do scratch my head on the rationale for the "Contributing Authors" 
>section, however, given the existence of the "Contributors" section 
>that the editor has the option of formatting identically. The reason 
>we give contact information in the "author/editor address" section 
>is so people can contact them. If I'm looking up, for example, the 
>contributors to RFC 1812, I have to start with the fact that there 
>were over 100 people that submitted actual text for inclusion, a 
>couple hundred more that actively discussed

I enjoyed reading RFC 1812.  To be topical, the Acknowledgments 
section is an good case given that the RFC is lengthy and there was a 
change of editors.

At 11:06 20-09-2011, Joe Touch wrote:
>For those of us who can go to IETFs regardless of how many drafts we 
>do or don't write, this may seem unimportant. However, others 
>sometimes need to point to something more than "contributor" to 
>justify travel to their organizations. Including contact info there 
>is more than a matter of POC; it may be what the supporting 
>organizations expects as a 'nod' to their authorizing travel.

Yes.  It is difficult to justify the travel if you are not listed as 
an author.  Whether we like it or not, sometimes corporate 
name-dropping is needed or else there won't be any support for doing the work.

BTW, this is turning out to be an IETF issue and not a RFC Editor 
issue as it is related to current practice of how work gets 
done.  One alternative is to have only one editor and put more 
emphasis on the contributors or acknowledgements section.  Sometimes 
the source of funding is listed in that section.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list