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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 19/04/2019 à 13:55, Jared Mauch a écrit :
> 
> 
>> On Apr 19, 2019, at 7:28 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Scott,
>> 
>> Thank you for the reply.
>> 
>>> Re: exploring the process of self retiring one's name from an
>>> RFC "Scott O. Bradner" <[e-mail]> Fri, 19 April 2019 10:14
>>> UTCShow header RFCs are not changed after they are published so
>>> removing one’s name from a existing RFC cannot be done.
>> 
>> Errata?
> 
> Perhaps.  They are requests for comments.  One of the comments may be
> that technology has changed, or risk profiles (or any number of other
> assumptions or realities have been bent).  I think retiring
> authorship isn’t really a useful way, but is the perpetual archive of
> comments just the e-mail archives or should there be a more prominent
> way for an author to submit comments for the historical record?

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.

Alex


> 
> - Jared
> 
>