Le 19/04/2019 à 17:22, Eric Rescorla a écrit :
Without taking a position on this specific case, it seems like there
are some interesting questions here.
Consider the hypothetical case where I falsely obtain an RFC in the
name of some other person (don't worry about how, say they are on
sabbatical and I guess their password). They then rightly object to
the RFC being in their name. What do we do? I'm guessing the answer
is going to be "withdraw the RFC and issue a new one without that
author and with a different number"?
This hypothesis is not very far-fetched, albeit there are so many
enquiring eyes at IETF that it would be difficult to implement it very far.
I have seen it in common early stages of I-D development to put someone
name without really having a true convinced agreement. Once you put a
name there, it stays there; the text inside may involve very largely,
but the names stay there.
Evolution of text also means wider support. So it's hard to decide
whether one wants to stay with the momentum, or wants to separate early.
The more time passes, the more obvious is which choice to make, but the
more difficult is to actually make it. (basically after AUTH48 it seems
even an Errata doesnt do it).
An additional complexity is the pseudonyms: how to make sure that the
names we see in drafts are real names or pseudonyms. Should a
technically sound idea in a draft be supported if authored under
pseudonym. Is adding a pseudo to an idea killing the idea?
Alex
-Ekr
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 8:17 AM Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
Behcet,
Thank you for the reply.
It is a good idea to write new I-Ds, or I-Ds updating old RFCs.
For this RFC in point, I am not main author. I suppose the other
authors will not agree if I modify it in the way I want to. This is
based on my understanding of their thinking.
Rather, I will stay happy by just having filed that Errata.
I will also tell anybody who asks me what is my thinking about the
64bit boundary.
Alex
Le 19/04/2019 à 16:44, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
I agree with Christian.
Alex, my suggestion is to write a new draft call it
draft-someone-rfcxxxbis with the current text on the RFC minus
you as
the author. Maybe you can not submit it you need to ask one of the
co-authors to submit. That draft may quickly be progressed to
become a new RFC to
supersede
RFCxxx.
Regards, Behcet
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 9:09 AM Christian Huitema
<huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
On Apr 19, 2019, at 5:18 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
