IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Sat, 20 April 2019 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 7BE5712015C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 10:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 oJqmoiEvJnjA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 10:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 60205120167 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 10:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x3KHlvO1037805; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 19:47:57 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 70382201EA1; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 19:47:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB80200E8A; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 19:47:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.68.2] ([10.8.68.2]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x3KHluj5012522; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 19:47:57 +0200
Subject: Re: exploring the process of self retiring one's name from an RFC
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
References: <1a0ba1ad-9e32-4663-208c-f94f4f0306de@gmail.com> <00fde7c6-c8a4-508e-5735-056647cdfb52@gmail.com> <9E3D5C77-C1C8-4D22-97BF-B97324C7DFCC@puck.nether.net> <13a585d3-ff7c-757d-3f5d-d60be289e0d1@gmail.com> <FE3CDAA5-CF0E-4D19-8985-76BAEEEC9E36@huitema.net> <b94d0cd7-0ca2-4072-3f2a-ef387406c2b0@gmail.com> <1C743268-61FA-4D7C-A3F4-C2DA950300C1@nohats.ca> <0BED049F-78EC-46D2-B79C-7D08F3FDD245@jisc.ac.uk>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <adca85a7-a33a-ac1e-7516-df559e377dc3@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 19:47:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0BED049F-78EC-46D2-B79C-7D08F3FDD245@jisc.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OB5X4m9FvwcUjZPhP_NyT7Ilq6E>
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, 20 Apr 2019 17:48:08 -0000


Le 20/04/2019 à 09:24, Tim Chown a écrit :
>> On 19 Apr 2019, at 16:47, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> As another author of that RFC, I would object strongly to that.  The
> (purely informational) draft documents the pros and cons of the
> 64-bit boundary, why it exists, and impacts of changing it
> (assumptions made).  It does not preclude any such future change.
> 
> Alex, I recall at the time you had the view you are expressing now,
> but chose to remain an author.  I think you now have to live with
> that choice!
> 
> But nothing precludes a new draft being written on the subject.

Tim,

Thank you for the recall of that time; which confirms me I did say it.

I will consider new draft being proposed in the subject.  IT will say 
something like "there is no 64bit boundary, the IIDs are variable length".

I wait a little for the rate limitation.

Alex

> 
> Tim
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email