Re: Generalized Signaling documents

[Eric Gray <eric.gray@sandburst.com>]

Randy,

    I see the presentation on manners really took hold.

    You don't want to be so terse that the content of your
many replies nears zero - considering each reply on its
own - and I'm not sure that being so terse is consistent
with the goal of getting back to work.

    As I understand it, the guidelines from the RFC editor
are that people who made substantial contributions to the
work are 'authors' and should be listed as such.  From there,
the progression might reasonably be to list a small set of
people (typically one) as the editor and acknowledge each
of the contributing authors in an appropriate section.

    If authors intend to indicate widespread support for the
ideas of an intended RFC, maybe it makes sense to add a
section - or paragraph - that spells this out.

    The intention - IMHO - is that the list of authors should
be consistent with the actual work and this implies some
guidelines of 'reasonableness'.  Any such guidelines would
naturally need to be flexible as such things tend to evolve.

    The RFC editor needs to put a stake in the ground in order
to maintain credibility for the RFC publishing process.  The
people contributing to the RFC process need to be sensitive
to this if they would like to have this process continue to be
as respected as it currently is.

You wrote:

>>>but it will be so now.  no exact number, but no longs lists.
>>>
>>Does that represent your own position, or the position of the
>>IESG as the whole ?
>>
>
>the iesg, the rfc editor, the teacher, and my mommy.  more details
>forthcoming.
>
>can we get to work now?
>
>randy
>


-- 
--
Eric Gray (mailto:eric.gray@sandburst.com)
http://www.mindspring.com/~ewgray