Re: 5378 Procedures Fix

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Thursday, March 12, 2009 15:44 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

>...
>> The point above, also consistent with my understanding of the
>> earlier IETF List discussion and conclusions, is that one
>> cannot have both the very broad definition of Contributor in
>> 5378 and its predecessors and the Note Well _and_ a trust in
>> the assumption that only listed authors count.
> 
> That's logically true. Acknowledged contributors count just as
> much as authors, in the way our draft is phrased.
> Unacknowledged contributors are going to be missed in any
> case. There's not much to be done about that.

While there isn't much to be done about it, the problem remains.
First, there has never been complete alignment between the 5378
and predecessor requirement for acknowledgment and the RFC
Editor's style rules about acknowledgment and listings of
authors and contributors.  However theoretical it may be, there
may always be someone out there who has a more or less strong
claim to being a contributor who is not listed.  The question
then is whether the author is going to be required to assume the
liability if that occurs.

   john