Le 19/04/2019 à 22:29, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
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?
I do not doubt your intentions with respect to these drafts.
But look how it works: none of these two drafts get through (one is
limbo one is non a WG item); what gets through is the RFC that is read
by people as support of /64. That is not normal.
I do not fully understand the intentions of the other authors, and I
will not really bother further.
If consensus is what gets an RFC, and that consensus leads to an idea
that I do not agree with, then I prefer retire from it.
Alex
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
.
