Le 19/04/2019 à 13:55, Jared Mauch a écrit :
On Apr 19, 2019, at 7:28 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Scott,
Thank you for the reply.
Re: exploring the process of self retiring one's name from an
RFC "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@xxxxxxxxx> Fri, 19 April 2019 10:14
UTCShow header RFCs are not changed after they are published so
removing one’s name from a existing RFC cannot be done.
Errata?
Perhaps. They are requests for comments. One of the comments may be
that technology has changed, or risk profiles (or any number of other
assumptions or realities have been bent). I think retiring
authorship isn’t really a useful way, but is the perpetual archive of
comments just the e-mail archives or should there be a more prominent
way for an author to submit comments for the historical record?
With respect to questioning the kinds of comments that could be put:
- it's not because the technology has changed that I need my way removed
from it.
- there is no new risk profiles.
- the reality has bent in the sense that the 64bit boundary seems to be
imposed now in all new IPv6-over-foo RFCs. It was so in the past
(before the RFC), and I was hoping the RFC to change that tendency. The
reality is that since that RFC many other IP-over-foo documents have
been written, and each time the recommendation is still to use 64bit
IID. That was not my intention when co-authoring that RFC. I got into
it to falsely believe the recommendation would happen in - what was at
the time - the future.
With respect to improved usefulness of a perpetual archive to insert up
to date feedback (comments answering the Request for Comments): I think
it sounds natural and it makes sense. That can not be the email list of
the WG having developed the RFC, because it gets shut down.
That perpetual archive can not be a new Internet Draft because that
expires if not adopted by a WG, which is itself subject to come and go
of people.
Alex
- Jared
