On 20-Apr-19 03:22, Eric Rescorla wrote: > 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"? If such a blatant abuse happened, I've no doubt that the RFC Editor would act appropriately. "Do the right thing", as Spencer reminds us. But in this particular case, I could go back through email to find the bits that Alexandre contributed. The document was intentionally written as factual analysis, at a given point in time, and not as a recommendation. It's part of the historical record. The place for change is draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis, which is in limbo since we haven't found consensus. Brian
