Perhaps we can agree that the reasonable course of action here is for Joe to (re)-recommend a compact set of citations to the authors, perhaps even in some easily consumable form to them (kramdown-2629 or XML)? Eliot On 8/17/16 5:28 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Joe, > > On 17/08/2016 16:08, Joe Touch wrote: >> On 8/16/2016 11:42 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> On 17 Aug 2016, at 3:23 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote: >>>> > [snip] >>>>> If that's the case, I'd observe that the IETF isn't an academic >>>>> publisher, and acknowledging all prior work in an area is neither >>>>> practical, nor required, nor current practice. >>>> Plagiarism isn't an issue limited to academic environments. >>>> Publication >>>> of a document on the web is still publication. >>> Sure. It also isn't a legal issue in this form (unless you're >>> asserting copyright?). Effectively, it's a cultural norm. Again, I >>> will point out that in the culture of the IETF, we historically have >>> not cited the complete provenance of every idea, both because it's >>> impractical and because it doesn't benefit the reader. >> Although that's true in the smallest cases, the IETF does have two >> concepts that support this norm: an author list and a set of references. >> >> Can you explain how it helps the reader to not cite two documents that >> are both squarely in the same area as this doc (interaction between HTTP >> and TCP and the impact of running many small connections closed at the >> client as for HTTP)? > Instead of starting your discussion with words like "plagiarism", you > could have just asked for information to be clarified and a > citation/acknowledgement added? With your current introduction you > pissed off lots of people. >>> As far as I know, the IETF does not have a stated position about >>> what you regard as PLAGIARISM. Hopefully we can get some clarity >>> about that from the ADs, as well as some definitive evidence of what >>> you're asserting. >> You can if you want, but my primary point here is to have this work >> corrected - and to stop the myth that "it doesn't matter" whether >> *reasonable* citations are included. > Noted. > > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2016 16:27:29 UTC