Re: exploring the process of self retiring one's name from an RFC

Aaron Falk <aafalk@akamai.com> Fri, 19 April 2019 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <aafalk@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B32120302 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.338
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_DYNAMIC=1.363, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ukABK94CVry for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEBB2120170 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x3JFv3Km016801; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:00:01 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type; s=jan2016.eng; bh=KFG7u2IV4tpHpupWz7nSyHRRQ2oet+POJMHVabDHPig=; b=krKetcXMF656HdUB3kJZO9/hXX+OBwike7MWYdI7w468FqarOjG8TAwUJRkqM1c0kurx gONz+EPyqMdtoD8d6ndOIsCIg65Y2/iyGV7tqF+8b9hEKBampPlAAjKQHt4qf3bP2SWj 82j8Vz5V7e7/pPy6CwXwKr00+jRsbu8+rvCpCMsrTw1lWZDzNC2gCGULBvQ+Jk9xFmFs XjeP4ItZxBwImsqtL4NMxp/Q+DO2ajlOCqjqjzxLw4thqL0yyG9MloaJsIhN1hDdNouC 2If3s4aafKDcTTnkm5FiZzeEDxU3v0RukVcQNIW2GEiv3A5jp4ySXhj+w92uKFnMIY91 NA==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2rxufwchqx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:00:01 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x3JFl2Fp020218; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:59:59 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.25.30]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2rub3vug31-2 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:59:59 -0400
Received: from [172.19.36.40] (172.19.36.40) by ustx2ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:59:35 -0700
From: Aaron Falk <aafalk@akamai.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
CC: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: exploring the process of self retiring one's name from an RFC
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:59:27 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.4r5594)
Message-ID: <DF65DF27-5E66-472B-9888-0D123B63D1E8@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <1a0ba1ad-9e32-4663-208c-f94f4f0306de@gmail.com>
References: <1a0ba1ad-9e32-4663-208c-f94f4f0306de@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_93050274-001E-43A3-B5E6-AF3B895717F6_="
X-Originating-IP: [172.19.36.40]
X-ClientProxiedBy: usma1ex-cas5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.53) To ustx2ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.107)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-04-19_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=947 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904190115
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-04-19_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=959 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904190116
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/AEkYRvsNlJfCFp7yKFQ8JplMVEQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:00:05 -0000

On 19 Apr 2019, at 6:00, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

> I consider using such process to retire my name from the RFC that
> analyses the 64bit boundary analysis.
>
> For some reason I got in that group, then participated positively to 
> the
> discussion, and I let myself tempted to have my name up on the first
> page of a published RFC; but finally, after much time and reflexion, I
> think I do not agree with the effects of this RFC.


Sounds like you may want to write an independent submission RFC on why 
you now think RFC7608 is a bad idea.

--aaron