Reaction: Indicating Summary Reaction to a Message
draft-crocker-inreply-react-14

Thanks for addressing my previous comments.

During post-last-call discussion, concerns were raised regarding appropriate recognition for contributors in the Acknowledgements section of this document.  I conducted a searching review of this topic while preparing these comments, including seeking the advice of IETF counsel, and I thank the interested parties for their patience as I did my research.

Although it has been suggested that BCP 78 (Section 5.6) and BCP 9 (Section 10.3.1) are instructive about what should be included in Acknowledgements, IETF oral tradition grants authors and editors wide latitude in this regard.  Also, notably, while BCP 9 is fairly limited in terms of what it says needs to go into Acknowledgements (mainly “major contributors”), BCP 78, which formally updates BCP 9, is markedly more liberal on this point.  Collectively, this naturally means there is no clear answer.

In its response to an appeal in 2013, the IESG declined to intervene in a similar case, deferring instead to the discretion of the document author.  The disposition of that appeal, as is the case here, appears to pivot on the author’s discretion with respect to whether the contribution was “major”.

On review, it is my personal opinion that certain text at the end of the current document’s Sections 3 and 5 was the synthesis of some of that discussion.  I do not, however, have an opinion as to whether these contributions qualify as “major”.  While I have urged, and with these comments do so again, that this discretion be reconsidered given the broad intent of BCP 78 and the typical (but less formal) guidance to be comprehensive and transparent with acknowledgements, I decline to obstruct progress of this document on that basis at this point in its life cycle.

Though not a formal appeal, this is now the second time this question has been raised to the level of the IESG for consideration.  As such, I suggest that the issue may be ripe for the community to discuss and contemplate more firm guidelines in this space.  For an organization already concerned with attrition and attracting newer participants, and with the very real risk of rather contentious formal proceedings, this is an area in which I believe we would do well to reach stronger consensus.

Though this is not the reason for my abstention, the IANA
Considerations section remains inconsistent with the structure
of the registry in which it is requesting allocation.