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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Behcet,

Thank you for the reply.

It is a good idea to write new I-Ds, or I-Ds updating old RFCs.

For this RFC in point, I am not main author.  I suppose the other 
authors will not agree if I modify it in the way I want to.  This is 
based on my understanding of their thinking.

Rather, I will stay happy by just having filed that Errata.

I will also tell anybody who asks me what is my thinking about the 64bit 
boundary.

Alex

Le 19/04/2019 à 16:44, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> I agree with Christian.
> 
> Alex, my suggestion is to write a new draft call it 
> draft-someone-rfcxxxbis with the current text on the RFC minus you as 
> the author.
> Maybe you can not submit it you need to ask one of the co-authors to 
> submit.
> That draft may quickly be progressed to become a new RFC to supersede 
> RFCxxx.
> 
> Regards,
> Behcet
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 9:09 AM Christian Huitema <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      > On Apr 19, 2019, at 5:18 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     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.
> 
>     Think about it.
> 
>     People change opinion all the time, for lots of reasons. Everybody
>     makes what they think are mistakes. But the record is the record,
>     and you don't get to change it.
> 
>     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.
> 
>     -- Christian Huitema
>