You seem to think the RFC should not apply anymore. So convince your old authors and/or the appropriate WG to move the RFC to Historic status. Paul Sent from mobile device > On Apr 19, 2019, at 17:09, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Christian, > > Le 19/04/2019 à 16:09, Christian Huitema a écrit : >>> 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. > > YEs. > >> Think about it. >> People change opinion all the time, for lots of reasons. > > But I did not change my mind! I always wanted the 64bit boundary > removed - then and now and in the future. I was in the hope that that > RFC would help. > > The events happened in such a way that that RFC hurts instead of > helping. People read it as if it is a recommendation to use 64bit > boundaries. > >> Everybody makes what they think are mistakes. But the record is the record, and you don't get to change it. > > I agree. > >> 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. > > I tend to agree. Another person told me in private the same thing. > > All I can do now, and I did, is to request an errata. I agree if it is > rejected. I will take greater care next time when opportunities to > author documents arise - they may be worth considering, others should > rather be avoided. > > Alex >> -- Christian Huitema
