IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 19 April 2019 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 C12F0120308 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 X46JsdoJw8Zy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 93B56120131 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x3JLFSDK007463 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 23:15:28 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E8F03206A4C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 23:15:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE542069F1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 23:15:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.68.22] ([10.8.68.22]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x3JLFPE1017372 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 23:15:27 +0200
Subject: Re: exploring the process of self retiring one's name from an RFC
To: ietf@ietf.org
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> <128fa987-79ac-ab5e-92d5-18d4e7ac26df@forfun.net>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fa8d5809-d538-fc9b-fb03-844be6820ce2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 23:15:25 +0200
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: <128fa987-79ac-ab5e-92d5-18d4e7ac26df@forfun.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dsa7Hlt8_qcf7Hr8FqR1_ylBfK8>
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 21:15:32 -0000


Le 19/04/2019 à 21:53, Marco Davids a écrit :
> Christian Huitema wrote:
> 
>  > You filed an errata to remove your authorship.
>  > That errata should be rejected
> 
> I've been pondering about this. Is there a need for a mechanism to solve 
> cases like this? Should we allow authors to distant themselves from 
> previous work, by making a brief statement in an errata? Maybe we should.

I think yes.

> I think I could live with an errata to RFC7421, stating what was stated 
> and leave the RFC itself in tact. The most appropriate status for it 
> would probably be: 'Held for Document Update'[1].

I agree to leave the RFC intact, just w/o my name in it.  I filed an 
Errata about it.

I dont understand 'Held for doc update'.

I do not support this RFC anylonger.

Alex

> 
> Would that work for for you, Alexandre?
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email