Re: Proposed ietf.org email address policy

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Sunday, 13 June, 2021 20:58 +0200 Carsten Bormann
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2021-06-13, at 19:47, John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>> 
>> Would we really, really, want
>> questions about variations on SMTP addressed to me in 2021?
> 
> But would you have opted in?

That is where I might not be typical enough to make a good
example.  I seem to suffer from an odd, perhaps pathological,
sense of responsibility where the Internet is concerned.and sp
the answer to your question is "probably", especially if things
were set up so that the alternates to my signing up were people
tracking me down anyway (see Ned's note) or inquiries going to
somewhere other than a set or ADs who were enthused about the
mob.

> The only situation where easier access to the authors might be
> construed harmful is where the WG or IESG had to hamstring the
> author in order to obtain an acceptable outcome.  Private
> conversation with the author might not benefit from that
> influence.

This may be just a quibble, but there is a rather large
difference between "author puts something into a document on the
nistrutions of a WG with which they disagree" and "need to
hamstring or otherwise torture".  Depending on the circumstances
and personality of the author, "might not benefit" might set it
well before the authors needed to be subject to physical harm.

> But that is true for any kind of contact with the author, and
> a lot of people do find my email address in RFCs I have
> co-authored and manage to send email to that.
> 
> So with all the horror scenarios of people outside the IETF
> actually talking to authors, I still think this is a net win.

I agree with Ned and his explanation of why the balance we have
today is just about right.

best,
   john