IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 19 April 2019 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 D79E912047A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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 LtMUbaBxk9QA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 85641120475 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1hHbGz-00033W-Ou; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 21:42:17 +0000
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:42:14 -0700
Message-ID: <m2ftqdoeo9.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: sarikaya@ieee.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: exploring the process of self retiring one's name from an RFC
In-Reply-To: <d20d7980-ca12-173e-7ce8-77a85ce639a1@gmail.com>
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> <CAC8QAcf=CswTTrxcsqWW7azwb97OMyh6iXFSx3=KhB9wtE8mEA@mail.gmail.com> <d20d7980-ca12-173e-7ce8-77a85ce639a1@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/S36wojLpqnwey7DffwYAUYoarkU>
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 21:42:23 -0000

> Why would the co-authors, the IETF, and the RFC Editor agree to a
> falsification of history?

what you (and i) assume, but which has not been clearly articulated, is
that published rfcs are an archival historical record, not works in
process.  once published, they are frozen.  hence errata etc. are
published separately.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email