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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 19 April 2019 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 D453B120320 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=szUPzJHJ; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=scdo8c9z
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 CTDE_RRJzNYm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 DB3701200B9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 70824 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2019 18:02:08 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=114a5.5cba0d20.k1904; bh=/SmpiVTkrGS51gbFpQxpYJsXqGygQMGrbcAChKKg/Uk=; b=szUPzJHJl6ZFK2w5+s+/LqmhoLHcjLOVSDtXvkHHoe7I08WlpkljFlcFcTtPLPaI7/kmhTX7aZ0Xj5QQ9ursVoNMS406aLI99o+/SyoiKgu4f4+eqIdvIe7zIfXo0nicXOf1UfjyltpCzhfQ6QVNRarCWQ+L6hBztU0oFVMSh46uAwPTTnsRdVRnNmVuOnnv7e7hlnNyy+lpQ+BeH3jjWSaZb9FinMHi3892ZPWPGp8NJeDWbQTiXUZuR7oFbkYz
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=114a5.5cba0d20.k1904; bh=/SmpiVTkrGS51gbFpQxpYJsXqGygQMGrbcAChKKg/Uk=; b=scdo8c9zOiNZEwlWyrLDvVjtqJtgCX1kgGxt/5hGYUH98irxd9J406B7/k4WxgSzNjrWkgW7IZOSoDI6PLIj+lC1Nbu5qe1z5+0/ad/TV3Ki59GwcPuJsUdAFg8+AgYyqA9zOTeLoa744bGG4/bR4MH5zrkKkVuAzKbZ9uWAKrZE5HLRDSfFgUpcAhJJfQomEZe+Q19GCpnBWX+oQIqqU6gpiL9SH6RUyQVIKnkFdNqxTJfiwHuWxkigoPCzMm0v
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 19 Apr 2019 18:02:08 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id D54BB2012AE790; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:02:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:02:07 -0400
Message-Id: <20190419180207.D54BB2012AE790@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: exploring the process of self retiring one's name from an RFC
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMi-s_CQM5kvNK963TqJOOt7aNBHXkTh0mD8ozBf9mshw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L7JYeimhPC-QCnm-J1jys9Yf3Bc>
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 18:02:14 -0000

In article <CABcZeBMi-s_CQM5kvNK963TqJOOt7aNBHXkTh0mD8ozBf9mshw@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>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"?

That rather far fetched scenario would involve so many process
failures that there's no way to say what the response would be without
knowing the facts of the specific situation.  If it were malicious,
perhaps to defame the person, or to fake patent priority, there would
be lawyers and law enforcement swarming about and complicating the
situation in ways I wouldn't begin to guess.

I think there are more pressing problems for us to deal with.

Apropos the original question, you don't get to rewrite history.  If
you think an RFC you wrote is wrong, write a draft with or without
the original co-authors saying why and see if you can get support for
publishing it.  That's how the IETF works.

R's,
John