> On Apr 19, 2019, at 5:18 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. In short, you are asking to remove your name of the authorship of and RFC because if you knew then what you know now, you would not have written the paper that way, nor signed it. Think about it. People change opinion all the time, for lots of reasons. Everybody makes what they think are mistakes. But the record is the record, and you don't get to change it. You filed an errata to remove your authorship. That errata should be rejected, because the document is not actually erroneous. It states that you were one of the authors at the time of publication, and there is no doubt about that. There is no error. -- Christian Huitema
