On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 7:48 PM Terry Manderson <terry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2024, at 7:54 AM, touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Although I appreciate the impact this has to our RFCs, we all experience this (touch@xxxxxxx is no more as well), though perhaps not to the same degree.
>
> I’ll step in here to defend Harvard’s decision; having an email available to someone who no longer holds an official position is a significant legal risk.
>
> Emails, URLs, and even RFC numbers change (remember back when TCP was “always” RFC793?). Search engines mitigate this problem, as would (preferably) a bounce message from Harvard providing the next known email, at least for a while.
>
> Joe
>
I'm looking at this from the impact to the RFCs and the link between RFC authors and other inquisitive minds. Especially while the author is still interested in responding to email questions.
I wonder if a level of abstraction can be created through an "author profile" that ties together all past author's address blocks and can provide the "latest known" address.
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Terry
We could have a BOF. People write proposals, that sort of thing.
The difficulty here is the problem is identity complete. If you are going to do the job properly, you need to use cryptography because the only identifier that you can indisputably claim is an indicata of a public key by means of the corresponding private key.
