Alexandre, I have to call you out on this one: On 20-Apr-19 03:52, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: > > > Le 19/04/2019 à 17:47, Paul Wouters a écrit : >> 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. > > I agree with your understanding. But my co-authors certainly think it > is not a Historic document but very up to date. > > Their untold expectations proved correct (make all IP-over-foo do 64) If that was my opinion, why would I have argued for removing the /64 boundary from draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis, and why would I be a co-author of draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6? Brian > and my untold expectation proved wrong (make all IP-over-foo do variable). > > I will not take the time to convince my co-authors. I rather want to > separate. > > Alex > >> >> 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 >> >> > > . >
