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

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

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.

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