Re: RFC793#ietf.org (was: Re: Proposed ietf.org email address policy)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 12 June 2021 01:32 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 1CAC03A172E; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 kcmtVV9igtzb; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F10903A172D; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1lrsVZ-000BC1-KD; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 21:32:21 -0400
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 21:32:15 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
cc: Lloyd W <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: RFC793#ietf.org (was: Re: Proposed ietf.org email address policy)
Message-ID: <151B3820DCC0A23EA1C58063@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-evvxAN75T5YRyGsTZMgwnjO+UJgHevS1vb6GtTZ1gMaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKKJt-evvxAN75T5YRyGsTZMgwnjO+UJgHevS1vb6GtTZ1gMaw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NB7PUXLj5mIuKFRORIpG44EvnW0>
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: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 01:32:31 -0000
--On Friday, June 11, 2021 14:51 -0500 Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Following up on one point ... > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 12:31 PM Michael Richardson > <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote: > >> >> I know we have draft-xxx@ietf.org aliases, and those can get >> updated via the >> DT, I'm unclear if I can email rfcxxxx@ietf.org to reach the >> authors, and that's not what's listed in the RFC. >> > > I just made sure - I sent to the address that would be my most > recent RFC, and got back "550 5.1.1 <rfc8462@ietf.org>: > Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias > table". > > So, that's a "nope". > > The minor question is that I'd expect such addresses to be > RFC793@rfc-editor.org(*) addresses, but let's ignore that for > now. > > We might be able to pull this off, going forward, but we're > doing AUTH48 on drafts in the 9040 range now. I'd bet that > there are a *lot *of past authors who aren't reachable at an > email address that the RFC Editor knows about for a variety of > reasons > > So it would be good to figure out what the objective would be > - to find someone who might still be knowledgeable about the > topic of the RFC, or still caring about the topic of the RFC, > or still reading e-mail, or what, exactly? > > One objective might be to find someone who "is responsible > for" the RFC - I was chasing down who was responsible for the > work produced by a concluded WG, literally "yesterday", so > that objective seems worthy, but I'm sure there are others. > > Best, > > Spencer > > (*) Yes, I chose one of Jon Postel's RFCs on purpose ... p" For whatever it is worth and IIR, the RFC Editor made an effort to keep an up-to-date list of contact addresses for RFC authors 25 or 30 years ago. It was a complete failure, at least in the sense that it became clear that it would have required a large amount of ongoing outreach and tracking-down effort on the RFC Editor's part to even have hope of keeping things up to date. And that was when we were published far fewer RFCs -- for example, only around 135 in CY 1995; harder to guess for recent years because of the number of documents being published out of chronological order, but I'd guess much larger. And, again subjectively the number of authors of whom one would need to keep track has also grown significantly. I assume John Levine has much more exact figures if anyone cared, but I really suspect this is a dead end without a commitment of significantly more energy and resources than it is worth. john
- RFC793#ietf.org (was: Re: Proposed ietf.org email… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: RFC793#ietf.org (was: Re: Proposed ietf.org e… Toerless Eckert
- Re: lots of dead addresses, was RFC793#ietf.org (… John Levine
- Re: lots of dead addresses, was RFC793#ietf.org (… Carsten Bormann
- Re: lots of dead addresses, was RFC793#ietf.org (… Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC793#ietf.org (was: Re: Proposed ietf.org e… John C Klensin
- Re: RFC793#ietf.org (was: Re: Proposed ietf.org e… John Levine
- Re: RFC793#ietf.org (was: Re: Proposed ietf.org e… Carsten Bormann
- Re: RFC793#ietf.org (was: Re: Proposed ietf.org e… Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC793#ietf.org (was: Re: Proposed ietf.org e… Spencer Dawkins at IETF