In article <CABcZeBMi-s_CQM5kvNK963TqJOOt7aNBHXkTh0mD8ozBf9mshw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >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"? That rather far fetched scenario would involve so many process failures that there's no way to say what the response would be without knowing the facts of the specific situation. If it were malicious, perhaps to defame the person, or to fake patent priority, there would be lawyers and law enforcement swarming about and complicating the situation in ways I wouldn't begin to guess. I think there are more pressing problems for us to deal with. Apropos the original question, you don't get to rewrite history. If you think an RFC you wrote is wrong, write a draft with or without the original co-authors saying why and see if you can get support for publishing it. That's how the IETF works. R's, John
