[Tools-discuss] datatracker, I-Ds, and email addresses

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 27 May 2023 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35258C151075 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 May 2023 16:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VYrtYUqIoUkS for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 May 2023 16:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D5ACC15106E for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 May 2023 16:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1q33HC-000LkP-DI; Sat, 27 May 2023 19:24:46 -0400
Date: Sat, 27 May 2023 19:24:19 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Tools Team Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
cc: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF14A35ABED1122EC614AF81@PSB>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/6RfvQ0ta-0aDK5cUQrqJXD_PjJs>
Subject: [Tools-discuss] datatracker, I-Ds, and email addresses
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 May 2023 23:24:51 -0000

Hi,

Until very recently, I assumed that the email addresses shown in
the Datatracker, particularly those shown on the home pages for
various I-Ds, would be the most up-to-date ones we had except,
possibly, for old I-Ds where they might reflect the addresses
shown as Author Address information in those I-Ds.

That does not appear to be the case.   If one examines
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rivest-sexp/
an address is shown for the first author, Ronald L. Rivest, of
rivest@theory.lcs.mit.edu.  His datatracker page does not show
any email addresses at all.  RFC 1186 (October 1990) shows that
address under Author's Addresses as does RFC 2593 (September
1999).  But that address has been dead, or at least
not-preferred, since at least July 2003 when LCS was merged into
CSAIL and MIT, IIR, was already strongly preferring user@mit.edu
styles of email addresses over user@department-or-lab.mit.edu
ones before I left about a decade earlier.

In any event, the Authors' Addresses section of
draft-rivest-sexp-00 shows the correct current email address,
rivest@mit.edu.  Why is the datatracker picking up, and showing
on that I-D page, a two decade-old address rather than the one
in an I-D posted a couple of days ago?  And, especially assuming
that there might be other instances of similar relationships,
can this be fixed and fixed more generally than patching that
particular page (although that would be good too)?

      thanks
       john