Re: [Tools-discuss] emailing authors of an RFC

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-06-13 08:39, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2019, at 22:14, Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Do we have author aliases for RFCs?  Maybe we don't.
>> 
>> No.  Not sure if we should.
> 
> Yes, we should.  (See the discussion over at 
> Archived-At: ⁨<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/sfev_MdLg-cgZTVFxE8jl3SQCIo>⁩
> for an example why this would be a good idea.)

Let me clarify.  I wasn't trying to say that RFC author aliases wouldn't be
a good thing, I was questioning whether the IETF should provide these, rather
than the RFC Editor.

> The draft-ietf-*@ietf.org aliases have been serving as a stand-in for
> the missing RFC author set aliases. I for one was not aware that
> these are now being deleted automatically, which makes plugging the
> RFC author alias hole more important.

The draft-* aliases have always been time-limited; I think I kept them
for 12 months after expiration when they were hosted on @tools.ietf.org,
and extended that to 24 months when we moved them to @ietf.org.


Regards,

	Henrik

> (Yes, authors of RFCs for wildly successful [RFC5218] protocols may
> want to have a way to opt out. Instead of deleting an alias and
> causing a non-delivery message, a helpful piece of information how
> the IETF works and how to reach out to the WG or any successor would
> be useful for those.)
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
> 
> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
> or send email to [e-mail]
> 
> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues
> or send email to [e-mail]
>