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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 2019, at 5:18 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <
> [e-mail]> 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
>