Guidelines for Assignment of RFC Authorship
draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-05
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Brian E. Carpenter | ||
| Last updated | 2026-06-20 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-05
RSWG B. E. Carpenter
Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational 20 June 2026
Expires: 22 December 2026
Guidelines for Assignment of RFC Authorship
draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-05
Abstract
This document describes ethical guidelines for assigning authorship
in RFC documents, including guidelines for the use of artificial
intelligence during document preparation, and for inclusion of
material from other documents. It also discusses the related issues
of acknowledgements, editors and contributors. The various RFC
streams are expected to apply these guidelines, and possibly define
their own variations, which will have priority.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-
ethics/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the RSWG Working Group
mailing list (mailto:rswg@rfc-editor.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rswg/.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 22 December 2026.
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Relationship to existing practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Authors and Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Organisational authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. List of Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Revised or Replacement Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Exceptions and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Material from other documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Artificial Intelligence Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Intellectual Property Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
14. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
15. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Background on General Authorship Ethics . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction and Scope
Ethical questions sometimes come up about who should be listed as the
author(s) of an RFC, who should be listed as editors or contributors,
and what acknowledgements are appropriate. Additionally, questions
have arisen about the use of artificial intelligence tools during the
drafting of future RFCs.
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
The policy guidelines below address these questions and are
applicable to all RFC streams as defined in [RFC7841] and [RFC9920],
and by any streams defined in future. Each stream has its own
approving body [RFC8729], and is expected to apply these guidelines
and, if necessary, explicitly define exceptions to and variations
from them.
*OPEN ISSUE: Is 'is expected to' the appropriate wording?*
In case of discrepancies or gaps, the stream's own policy and the
preference of its approving body will prevail over this document. In
particular, the final list of authors and editors will be determined
by the RFC stream concerned according to its own procedures.
Aspects not covered by this document are left as operational choices
for the streams and for the RFC Production Centre (RPC).
Appendix A covers some general aspects of authorship ethics as
background information. The remainder of this document lists several
principles and then provides explanatory material.
1.1. Principles
1. The RFC Series should have a consistent approach across all
streams to the ethical issues surrounding authorship. Thus,
readers can trust RFCs equally, regardless of the stream.
2. Each stream determines its own process for the drafting of RFCs;
the guidelines stated here apply only to final copy, and not to
drafts.
3. These guidelines are subject to human judgement and are not to
be interpreted as if they were rigid rules. The streams already
have processes in place to apply such human judgement.
Procedures to resolve disputes about that judgement already
exist in [RFC9920].
4. Listed authors are people who have made a substantial creative
contribution to the document.
5. Listed editors are people who have made a substantial
contribution to preparing the document for publication.
6. The listed authors and editors are collectively responsible for
the content of the document. The distinction is not significant
as far as responsibility goes.
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
7. Other people who have made a significant contribution should be
listed as contributors or otherwise acknowledged.
8. Determination of the people listed under #4, #5 and #7 is made
by the stream.
9. Material copied from other sources must be acknowledged. Such
sources include RFCs, other drafts, other publications, and any
material generated by AI.
10. Material from other sources must not be copied without the right
to do so.
2. Relationship to existing practice
The principles above and the following guidelines are intended to be
compatible with the RFC Editor's style guide, including [RFC7322],
and with an earlier RFC Editor authorship policy [RFCED-policy].
For the IETF stream, there is an existing IESG statement on Internet-
Draft Authorship: [IESG-policy]. For the IAB stream, see Section 1
of [RFC4845]. For the IRTF stream, Section 4 of [RFC9775] covers
this topic.
With respect to acknowledgements and rights, all RFC streams have
adopted [BCP78], so its provisions apply to all authors and editors.
Independently of the above principles, the RPC will apply its style
guide in the process of final editing, but will not make any non-
editorial changes to the technical content, in accordance with
Section 4.3 of [RFC9920].
The Editorial stream will apply these guidelines from the date of
publication of this document as an RFC. Other streams which intend
to adopt these guidelines should do so explicitly, also explicitly
defining any exceptions and variations.
3. Authors and Editors
Authors, and designated editors (if any), will be listed as such on
the front page, and in public bibliographies, when the RFC is
published. They bear long-term responsibility for the entire
contents, even though publication may be subject to approval by one
of the RFC streams. They are also required to give final approval of
the contents of the RFC after it has been processed by the RPC.
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
Terminology and procedures for authorship and editorship may vary
between RFC streams, so the following three subsections are mainly
indicative.
3.1. Authors
Authors are usually people who have made a substantial creative
contribution to the document. This means writing text or drawing
diagrams, or making a key conceptual or intellectual contribution.
Sometimes, with the consent of the other authors, it means making
some other substantial creative contribution to the document, for
example by writing a software implementation as part of the design
process.
People who did not make any such substantial contribution are not
normally listed as authors. It is also worth noting that in an RFC,
authorship by an employee does not automatically imply endorsement by
the employer. Therefore, authors should not be added just because of
who they work for.
In normal circumstances, people should never be listed as authors
without their explicit permission. In case of doubt, the person
handing a draft over to the RPC should check with each listed author
in advance to avoid any misunderstandings.
3.2. Organisational authors
Some standards development organisations always remove individual
authorship when a document is formally adopted. This is not done for
RFCs.
Historically, organisations have sometimes been listed as RFC
authors, including both community organisations such as "IAB",
"IESG", "IANA" and "RFC Editor", and various external organisations
and companies. This is discouraged unless specifically requested by
an RFC stream. An example is [RFC4089] which shows "IAB and IESG" as
an author and an individual as the editor.
3.3. Editors
When a document has a large number of potential authors, it may be
appropriate to designate certain authors as "Editors" while the
others remain as "Authors". It may also happen that technically
expert editors are added to a document to assist the original
authors, or to ensure that community input is incorporated. RFC
streams may have specific procedures for appointing editors, e.g.
[I-D.ietf-procon-2418bis].
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
The editors will do the actual work of editing the document on behalf
of the community and the other authors.
Thus there may be a list of authors of whom some are designated as
editors. Ideally, the people concerned should all feel happy that
the designations of editors, authors and contributors (Section 4) are
fair and accurate.
Historically, RFC streams have chosen to retain the word "Author" in
most cases, with the formal designation of "Editors" being
exceptional.
4. Contributors
Contributors are people who made smaller contributions to the
document than the authors, for example providing initial ideas that
others have transformed into publishable text, or drafting only a few
paragraphs. People who did not make any such contribution should not
be listed as contributors.
Listing someone as a contributor is a factual statement that does not
imply responsibility for the document as a whole.
People should not normally be listed as contributors without their
explicit permission. If a person objects to such a listing, and
especially if they do not support the document as posted, it may be
appropriate to include them in the list of acknowledgements with a
suitable disclaimer (Section 5).
The dividing line between contributors and authors is a matter of
judgement and cannot be rigidly defined. It may vary between the
various RFC streams. However, the RPC's practice is to query any
document that has more than five listed authors (including editors).
Any list of more than five authors must be approved by the relevant
RFC stream's approving body, bearing in mind that listed authors and
editors bear long-term responsibility for the contents.
5. List of Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements should be given to people who have made significant
creative contributions smaller than those from the authors and
contributors, or to people who have made useful comments, provided
critical reviews, or otherwise contributed significantly to the
development of the document. The dividing line between people who
are acknowledged and those listed as contributors is a matter of
judgement and cannot be rigidly defined.
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
Acknowledgements may also be given to people or organizations that
have given material support and assistance, but this should not
include the authors' regular employers unless there are exceptional
circumstances.
An acknowledgement should be written as a description of a fact. It
does not and should not signify that the person acknowledged agrees
with or supports the document. In general, people who do not wish to
be listed as an author or a contributor, but have in fact made a
significant contribution, should be given an acknowledgement. In
unusual circumstances, acknowledgements of contributions have
specifically indicated that the contributor does not support the
document as posted. A disclaimer such as the following might be
used:
Thanks to <insert names> for their valuable comments and help
during the development of this document, even though they did not
fully agree with the WG's conclusion.
When in doubt, it is usually better to include an acknowledgement
than to omit it.
6. Revised or Replacement Documents
A common occurrence is that an RFC from some years ago requires
updating. This is often done by people who were not the original
authors. The question then arises of whether to list the original
authors on the "bis" draft, even if they are long gone from active
participation.
When an RFC is drafted by one or more new people but reuses
significant amounts of text from one or more earlier RFCs, a
situation arises that often requires thought and careful handling.
The criteria above suggest that the authors of the original documents
should continue to be listed as authors. After all, there is rarely
any question that the earlier publications constitute "a substantial
creative contribution" to the revised document. However, there are
no guarantees that the prior authors will want to be listed as
authors of the new RFC and take on whatever responsibilities that
implies. Ideally, those assembling the newer version will consult
with the authors of the previous ones and make mutually acceptable
arrangements, but, especially when that is not feasible, sensitivity
to all possible issues will be needed.
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
7. Exceptions and Discussions
It goes without saying that normally nobody should be listed as an
author, contributor or editor against their will. Ideally, the
parties involved will agree among themselves, or defer to the
preference of the relevant RFC stream approving body. However, we
need flexibility to deal with unusual cases, such as these:
* If an author or editor wishes to withdraw, for example because
they no longer agree with the premise of the document, this should
be honoured, although the person may then be listed as a
contributor or be mentioned in the acknowledgements.
* As noted above, an acknowledgement is a statement of fact (the
person contributed to the discussion). In some cases it may be
included even if the person acknowledged objects, for example if
they made a suggestion that might later be viewed as prior art.
* Generalising the point made in Section 6, an earlier author or
contributor may deserve to be listed, even if they cannot be
contacted when a document is updated after a long interval. Each
such case needs to be considered on its merits.
* In particular, an author or contributor might be deceased.
8. Disputes
Disputes about authorship, editorship, contributors and
acknowledgements for future RFCs will not be settled by the RPC and
must be resolved by the relevant RFC stream according to its own
procedures. This includes any cases where an author or editor is
asked to withdraw.
9. Material from other documents
If significant amounts of text are copied from other documents of any
kind, this should be suitably acknowledged. Unauthorised copying
from other documents constitutes plagiarism and is not allowed.
Authors and editors are expected to take reasonable steps to avoid
accidental plagiarism.
However, the Internet technical community that contributes to the RFC
series generally encourages the free flow of ideas between documents.
In other words, internal "plagiarism" between RFCs is normal.
Sometimes sections of text are copied from one document into another,
and subsequently changed as the discussion evolves. Within the RFC
series, this is normal procedure as long as due acknowledgement is
given. Indeed, when technical text has been carefully verified in a
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
previous RFC, reuse of existing text is an important tool to avoid
restating a specification or concept, and possibly introducing new
unintended interpretations which might cause interoperability issues.
The only exception to this is an RFC that carries a "no derivative
works" legend according to [BCP78].
10. Artificial Intelligence Tools
Authors will use various editing programs and other tools for
document preparation, and in general these do not raise any ethical
concerns. For example, if tables, graphs or diagrams are generated
using a specialized software program, this is of no concern. If
formal notation is verified by specialized software, this is also of
no concern.
If an AI tool is used for document preparation, the following
guidelines apply:
* The authors or editors remain entirely responsible for any content
generated by AI.
* The authors or editors remain entirely responsible for all
intellectual property matters.
* An AI tool must not be credited as an author.
* If AI usage has been limited to improving English grammar,
translating from a draft in another language, or other purely
editorial uses, this is no different in principle from older tools
like spelling checkers.
*OPEN ISSUE: Should the following bullet be included?*
* If, however, a substantial part of the document was created by AI,
this is expected to be disclosed, typically in the
Acknowledgements section, as for any other material not written by
the listed authors. This guideline is to avoid any confusion
about the authorship of the document and to ensure that its
readers are not misled.
11. Intellectual Property Rights
This document does not discuss intellectual property rights (IPR) and
in no way preempts or alters the various RFC streams' rules and
requirements concerning IPR. All authors and editors are strongly
advised to be familiar with the applicable rules, e.g.
[BCP78],[BCP79].
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
Copyright in RFCs is governed by [BCP78], the IETF Trust/IPMC's Legal
Provisions, and applicable national and international law.
The word "contributor" as used in this document might not mean the
same thing as the word "Contributor" used in the [BCP78].
12. Security Considerations
None, really.
13. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
14. Change log
[RFC Editor: please remove.]
draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-00, 2026-04-11:
* Original version (derived from draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-
03).
draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-01, 2026-04-23:
* Many small changes after first round of comments.
* Underline that each stream can make its own rules.
* Added very short section on dispute resolution.
draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-02, 2026-05-26:
* Further clarified that each stream may establish its own
guidelines.
* Replaced "stream manager" by "approving body".
* Moved background material to Appendix, and trimmed it.
* Removed reference to academia.
* Removed reference to order of author list.
* Removed some redundancy.
* Numerous minor edits.
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-03, 2026-06-05:
* Removed the word "ethics" from the document title
* Adjusted scope such that each stream may explicitly accept these
guidelines and define exceptions and variations
* Stated that IPR is out of scope.
* Added statement that the Editorial stream will apply these
guidelines
* Stated that the list of authors and editors will be determined by
the RFC stream
* Reordered several sections for clarity
* Moved text about author withdrawal to the Exceptions section
* Mentioned removal of authors in the Disputes section
* Made author/editor responsibility more explicit
* Made _lack_ of contributor responsibility more explicit
* Generalised requirement to acknowledge copying from other RFCs
(previously only stated for AI, which was silly)
* Generalised plagiarism rule (ditto)
* Re-ordered bullets about AI usage
* Added brief justification for AI disclosure, and marked it as an
open issue
draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-04, 2026-06-09:
* Adjusted scope to say that each stream _is expected to_ (instead
of _may_) apply these guidelines, and marked it as an open issue.
* Adjusted AI disclosure guideline to _is expected to_ (instead of
_must_).
* Reconciled discrepancy between Abstract and main text
draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-05, 2026-06-20:
* Added list of principles near the front
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
* Highlighted relationship to existing practice
* Moved discussion of copying between RFCs into main text
* Removed remark about prior art
* Clarified that author/editor descriptions are only indicative
* Clarified that the guidance applies specifically to the final
draft sent to the RPC, not to how the sausage was made
15. Informative References
[BCP78] Best Current Practice 78,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.
[BCP79] Best Current Practice 79,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179>.
[I-D.carpenter-whats-an-author]
Carpenter, B. E., "What is an Author of an IETF Stream
Draft?", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
carpenter-whats-an-author-02, 13 June 2015,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-carpenter-
whats-an-author-02>.
[I-D.ietf-procon-2418bis]
Salz, R., Schinazi, D., and S. O. Bradner, "IETF Working
Group Guidelines and Procedures", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-procon-2418bis-02, 2 March
2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
procon-2418bis-02>.
[ICMJE] "Roles and Responsibilities of Authors", n.d.,
<https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-
responsibilities/>.
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
[IEEE-AI] "Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Generated
Text", n.d., <https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/
become-an-ieee-journal-author/publishing-ethics/
guidelines-and-policies/submission-and-peer-review-
policies/#ai-generated-content>.
[IEEE-ethics]
"IEEE Author Ethics Guidelines", n.d.,
<https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/wp-
content/uploads/IEEE-Author-Ethics-Guidelines.pdf>.
[IESG-policy]
IESG, "IESG Statement on Internet-Draft Authorship", May
2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-
iesg-statement-on-internet-draft-authorship-20210510/>.
[KoreanMath]
"Korean Mathematical Society Code of Ethics", n.d.,
<https://ckms.kms.or.kr/content/contributors/
code_of_ethiscs.html>.
[NIH] Singhal, S. and B. S. Kalra, "Publication ethics -- Role
and responsibility of authors", January 2021,
<https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7821455/>.
[RFC4089] Hollenbeck, S., Ed. and IAB and IESG, "IAB and IESG
Recommendation for IETF Administrative Restructuring",
RFC 4089, DOI 10.17487/RFC4089, May 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4089>.
[RFC4845] Daigle, L., Ed. and IAB, "Process for Publication of IAB
RFCs", RFC 4845, DOI 10.17487/RFC4845, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4845>.
[RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322>.
[RFC7841] Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed.,
"RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7841>.
[RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8729>.
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
[RFC9775] Perkins, C. S., "IRTF Code of Conduct", RFC 9775,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9775, March 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9775>.
[RFC9920] Hoffman, P. and A. Rossi, "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)",
RFC 9920, DOI 10.17487/RFC9920, February 2026,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9920>.
[RFCED-policy]
RFC Editor, "RFC Series Editor statement on authorship",
May 2015, <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-
interest/SHM7dHZd_S1a-CkW2JCBvxdKmcs/>.
Appendix A. Background on General Authorship Ethics
These are some quite general aspects of the ethics of professional
authorship of academic or technical documents. Important points are
as follows.
* Factual accuracy, including accuracy about who wrote the document.
* Avoidance of misleading or obfuscating statements.
* Avoidance of misleading omissions.
* Balance between opposing arguments.
* Acknowledgement and citation of sources and references.
* Identification of quoted material, and avoidance of unacknowledged
plagiarism.
* Conflicts of interest should be made public.
* Corrections, clarifications and retractions should be made
promptly when needed.
There are quite a few subjective judgements to be made about whether
a contribution is substantial enough to count as authorship. Funding
support, professional reputation, managerial or supervisory status,
and CV embellishment should be irrelevant. What fraction of new or
corrected text counts? Is a particular concept or brilliant idea
enough? Should the author of a previous trail-blazing document be
invited to join? Should someone who promised to contribute
significantly, but only contributed fragments, be removed? It is
hard to give definite guidelines for such cases.
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Author Assignment June 2026
Many academic journals and universities have published policies about
authorship. Two examples from medical science are [ICMJE] and [NIH].
An example from mathematics is [KoreanMath]. The IEEE also has clear
guidance [IEEE-ethics].
Some organisations have adopted strict policies about the use of
artificial intelligence (AI) during document preparation, e.g.,
[IEEE-AI].
Acknowledgements
Valuable comments on this document and its 2015 predecessor
[I-D.carpenter-whats-an-author] were received from Loa Andersson,
Andy Bierman, Carsten Bormann, Scott Bradner, Dave Crocker, Jay
Daley, Martin Dürst, David Farmer, Stephen Farrell, Joel Halpern, Bob
Hinden, Russ Housley, John Klensin (who also contributed some text),
Larry Kreeger, Mirja Kuehlewind, Watson Ladd, Eliot Lear, John
Levine, Jean Mahoney, S. Moonesamy, Lucas Pardue, Craig Partridge,
Colin Perkins, Tom Petch, Alexandru Petrescu, Pete Resnick, Eric
Rescorla, Michael Richardson, Nathanael Ritz, Rich Salz, Rob Sayre,
Yaron Sheffer, Martin Thomson, and Joe Touch.
Especially given the topic of this draft, the author apologises for
any accidental omissions.
Author's Address
Brian E. Carpenter
The University of Auckland
School of Computer Science
The University of Auckland
PB 92019
Auckland 1142
New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Carpenter Expires 22 December 2026 [Page 15]