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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 19/04/2019 à 22:29, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> 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?

I do not doubt your intentions with respect to these drafts.

But look how it works: none of these two drafts get through (one is 
limbo one is non a WG item); what gets through is the RFC that is read 
by people as support of /64.  That is not normal.

I do not fully understand the intentions of the other authors, and I 
will not really bother further.

If consensus is what gets an RFC, and that consensus leads to an idea 
that I do not agree with, then I prefer retire from it.

Alex

> 
>     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
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Christian,
>>>>
>>>> Le 19/04/2019 à 16:09, Christian Huitema a écrit :
>>>>>> On Apr 19, 2019, at 5:18 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>>>>>> <[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.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> .
>>
> 
>