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

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Fri, 19 April 2019 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.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 79204120320 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:26:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 aEqlWg6-1IHn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [98.153.82.211]) (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 2FFCE12001E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R5OQLX1Y1S008BPP@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R5JGYE5TJ4000051@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Message-id: <01R5OQLVCP7G000051@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:13:48 -0700
Subject: Re: exploring the process of self retiring one's name from an RFC
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:02:07 -0400" <20190419180207.D54BB2012AE790@ary.qy>
References: <CABcZeBMi-s_CQM5kvNK963TqJOOt7aNBHXkTh0mD8ozBf9mshw@mail.gmail.com> <20190419180207.D54BB2012AE790@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ldQafEDhnKl-65ivA4lveu2b6aU>
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 18:26:24 -0000

> Apropos the original question, you don't get to rewrite history.  If
> you think an RFC you wrote is wrong, write a draft with or without
> the original co-authors saying why and see if you can get support for
> publishing it.  That's how the IETF works.

It's how the world works, when it works. Undo has always been more of a fantasy
than a reality, but thanks to Keller, Fennerty, Tilghman, et al., who
collectively made inexpensive paper widely available cira 1860, any chance
of it working was effectively eliminated.

And then along came digital, reducing the cost of copies to essentially zero.

Of course this hasn't stopped people from trying. And failing. Repeatedly.

Think of it as the world's first blockchain. And like a blockchain, your only
option is to publish a correction of some sort.

				Ned