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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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) 
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
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Christian,
>> 
>> Le 19/04/2019 à 16:09, Christian Huitema a écrit :
>>>> On Apr 19, 2019, at 5:18 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>>>> <[e-mail]> 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
> 
>