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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 19 April 2019 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 407101202E7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 rqRsTfJONLIx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E913120159 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id j89so4977480ljb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FOLx8SfM5lRKJw+myp6micOpgKzxRLOV1IG85F0ryEM=; b=YgL4B1F2GtL33NTLQ4qROqdfZRuOUnzXuhytewjEhMbb1itqhaG/RwH0PbmRhSRxf+ PFE28M4mJjdJVrqC/bulQBfJ5emKer5bBw5TFDdTTSlSgVqa6lDbgRb0fsYAnroWEVE7 tmoVtm6tGrJ8RSBUiwIh9BR9jBRfLHeVwUuz31d0tsKrInAkuhP0AGcWAqh0cYC+yE+i tJADTXh6N84X7qwrEj8R+QdFbU0FWehLNtil7FPrVYn/LUssL4GHz7gMIOF4j1XjCIem ZWb6pnrSfoUBrpsvQdRhW8OvIdxvizslGTsuRIOzWcNmpYF7RyZ2rRiRkmvLkuKvjgxn PErw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FOLx8SfM5lRKJw+myp6micOpgKzxRLOV1IG85F0ryEM=; b=ANTOwb/hcsIe+40xFqz722r5V6Myjng3daDTPjTCoG59BKmmh85COSOjsY0KobCy7U gaGkT9A1vAVdGfG5p52cORsFpsCnNeGahibSacm+XsjMZKHiv4ZPFQdF/w4nmR3HzKNh 3pgKpMP9bwspHdODt8ybJ2LymAVUaiRwltCGdv8MKjyz5fCZG1V90Qwqm9tBN31RIQ3d jQ39Cosc1Xic/+Yq9lENvry1zIBqVXBZ1X0J6/G/KY2ORLNODlsjhe0L8mlfOSQ1fLkc eWm+JkIVahDPypYPZF3zvWD0BIrBvTgOtWx0nTJK5y7SW0KaUazMOj9G9HsIU7d74sBm 4H0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUfav2ZRXPsCVblU+6UQzWnR94bxyHyypDTwQMFdnrCvyJ9mS8r BQetybtiNF1HbIXhI8fkjdPRVvQJlVFDVQW0kVsQQA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzWwBkoaSs8o7koxa1Vpsu4xyMvZ08TG1GmgvBdrCCjfDPPlfxwTGVC89FaWRiOP1IBBtC/FoRXDIf3xkS/f80=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:894e:: with SMTP id b14mr2280903ljk.158.1555687411614; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <CAC8QAcf=CswTTrxcsqWW7azwb97OMyh6iXFSx3=KhB9wtE8mEA@mail.gmail.com> <04e9ef58-98ce-fcef-fb3e-036c21a19d67@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <04e9ef58-98ce-fcef-fb3e-036c21a19d67@gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:22:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMi-s_CQM5kvNK963TqJOOt7aNBHXkTh0mD8ozBf9mshw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: exploring the process of self retiring one's name from an RFC
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: sarikaya@ieee.org, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008d18450586e3b314"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vCJcHVYwzPJyszbVCmhCoKRAUDQ>
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 15:23:36 -0000

Without taking a position on this specific case, it seems like there
are some interesting questions here.

Consider the hypothetical case where I falsely obtain an RFC in the
name of some other person (don't worry about how, say they are on
sabbatical and I guess their password). They then rightly object to
the RFC being in their name. What do we do? I'm guessing the answer
is going to be "withdraw the RFC and issue a new one without that
author and with a different number"?

-Ekr




On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 8:17 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Behcet,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> It is a good idea to write new I-Ds, or I-Ds updating old RFCs.
>
> For this RFC in point, I am not main author.  I suppose the other
> authors will not agree if I modify it in the way I want to.  This is
> based on my understanding of their thinking.
>
> Rather, I will stay happy by just having filed that Errata.
>
> I will also tell anybody who asks me what is my thinking about the 64bit
> boundary.
>
> Alex
>
> Le 19/04/2019 à 16:44, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> > I agree with Christian.
> >
> > Alex, my suggestion is to write a new draft call it
> > draft-someone-rfcxxxbis with the current text on the RFC minus you as
> > the author.
> > Maybe you can not submit it you need to ask one of the co-authors to
> > submit.
> > That draft may quickly be progressed to become a new RFC to supersede
> > RFCxxx.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Behcet
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 9:09 AM Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net
> > <mailto:huitema@huitema.net>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      > On Apr 19, 2019, at 5:18 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
> >     <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>
> >     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.
> >
> >     Think about it.
> >
> >     People change opinion all the time, for lots of reasons. Everybody
> >     makes what they think are mistakes. But the record is the record,
> >     and you don't get to change it.
> >
> >     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.
> >
> >     -- Christian Huitema
> >
>
>