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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 19 April 2019 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 1E59A120168 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:29:09 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 JY6WFQxkUw8j for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C926E12004A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id v2so676010pge.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TebxjJ+r3YVwrvKEBv5qpzO7aXa1+tIYigpt0n6xAsQ=; b=kDLNFoH0CsfE1t6sDbhj1Xexs8EgCn+GWA/ZR3179M9KOX+qEARrj+L6T4nhKoHaH8 5gRBETcnkgTBAbZCSrgagkhfvmJ9/36iXG5jJl1yaGuedu8O0ShvS+utiYYSqXbnnHTj Fhcss+sp5eLB3rheV3+1MtvQDrwWogVeq3cxBu3h4BO+BtRH9xf+QkGjcaxHOY6yhxzT VWEbEOvwsgMwOpHV+Dzd4dlNKeCjNX0/caJPgdQgvfmVtCpdClIoxJse4b+XwQYpVNFY nmGOz3ME/EeJENHunKLxoGMhTFu2jN38L+AoUk68lhQH1ZNin7FNixunJAv2VFrJ8VAC TRKg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TebxjJ+r3YVwrvKEBv5qpzO7aXa1+tIYigpt0n6xAsQ=; b=Y1OwwfR7NzVFg0/d3+sGu6c62lAgQlFL2G6/RV3DMCDIM9zgTB62eh8adkBdc9q930 VuZCrSF9t9hEGOnc3V73axKSishIRmg89rxqxbap2yw3mbIFfmQbePBYNQ0gdtHboZqJ Sn3kCQ1r/l4gli/wa5XA86sV/aEBpzJrqfXqobQGP9LEocUKpVr17BzkE+m6Jhg9PECQ DMGh3umnm5gpokqLrviA40aBIAVMMuE3bm0UWe9ltYUm+QU7c3MjSTEmgJV3Hl+0ygvp YHsBGRuUjL6Q+mSvXTROc7iNOa7VU6IDn0UcnWoexvFZCRYneEERlGoJnxwvNcW36XWc 7uZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUKUU6j3Xd7MdngRw4Z+iuWN7pxoEYxkfFuLrrx0HSz1V6Dc5r2 /nJc3fU26BtRQVIxVELYh4k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyPEWwxGz9pm6A3bpOkU2ZEr6tUkLYw1enola90Ik3hV7hzG6B1kd0ulZQgDbcNB8qVocqX9g==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:4c:: with SMTP id 73mr5766261pga.210.1555705746380; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.72.205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t82sm16135696pfa.153.2019.04.19.13.29.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: exploring the process of self retiring one's name from an RFC
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, 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> <2be47ea4-a18a-2d8f-67db-315d448a0fea@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <86e95ce2-06ea-1afd-9e71-a2cf7ae1344d@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 08:29:03 +1200
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: <2be47ea4-a18a-2d8f-67db-315d448a0fea@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ZDOhvNO-6_hbGYFv8m3J1epGKGs>
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 20:29:09 -0000

Alexandre, I have to call you out on this one:

On 20-Apr-19 03:52, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> 
> 
> 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) 

If that was my opinion, why would I have argued for removing the /64
boundary from draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis, and why would I be a co-author
of draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6?

   Brian

> 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
>>> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Christian,
>>>
>>> Le 19/04/2019 à 16:09, Christian Huitema a écrit :
>>>>> On Apr 19, 2019, at 5:18 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>>>>> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> 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
>>
>>
> 
> .
>