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

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:21:25 +0200

Hi 6MANers,

I would like to ask whether there is process steps to retire one's name 
from a published RFC.

I consider using such process to retire my name from the RFC about the 
64bit boundary analysis.

For some reason I got in that group, then participated positively to the 
discussion, and I let myself tempted to have my name up on the first 
page of a published RFC; but finally, after much time and reflexion, I 
think I do not agree with the effects of this RFC.

(I know there is common practice to retire one's name from a Work in 
Progress Internet Draft - suffices it to ask - but I dont know whether 
the same can be done with a published RFC).

Alex

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:54:05 +0100

> I would like to ask whether there is process steps to retire one's name 

when you explicitly agreed in writing that the RFC be published with 
your name at the top, you agreed to the terms of bcp78 which states:

> 5.3.  Rights Granted by Contributors to the IETF Trust
> 
>    To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is protected
>    by copyright or other rights of authorship, the Contributor and each
>    named co-Contributor grant a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive,
>    royalty-free, world-wide, sublicensable right and license to the IETF
>    Trust under all such copyrights and other rights in the Contribution:
> 
>    a. to copy, publish, display, and distribute the Contribution, in
>       whole or in part,

However, this is an ietf question rather than a 6man question. If you 
want a formal response from the IETF about whether this is possible, you 
need to ask the IETF.

Nick

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:59:28 +0200

Le 19/04/2019 à 11:54, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
>> I would like to ask whether there is process steps to retire one's 
>> name from a published RFC.
> 

Thank you for the explanation and for the recommendation.

I will ask there to IETF.

(for the Rights: I may want to retire these rights.  This may infringe 
that 'irrevocable' word, I guess).

(remark also  that it's not the Copyright or License that worry me; it 
is the technical content; they can use the License, Copyright and 
Royalty as they want; it is the technical content that I do not agree with.)

Alex

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 12:05:03 +0200

On 19/4/19 11:59, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>> want a formal response from the IETF about whether this is possible,
>> you need to ask the IETF.
> 

RFCs are not edited or deleted.

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 12:06:02 +0200

> RFCs are not edited or deleted.

Errata?

Alex

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 12:13:40 +0200

>> RFCs are not edited or deleted.

Well.. you *can* fill an errata. -- it would be a very funny (?) thing
if somehow it got rejected (!) :-)

In any case, that doesn't really retire your name from the RFC -- you
just can't. And for folks that just download the rfc repo, it may go
unoticed.

Thanks,

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 12:15:49 +0200

> just can't. And for folks that just download the rfc repo, it may go

Let me try that.  It would really help me.  I dont care whether someone 
notices it or not, I just did my best.

Alex

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 12:23:26 +0200

> just can't. And for folks that just download the rfc repo, it may go

I filed an Errata.  It worked fine.  It seemed accepted.

(I have a remark on the Errata process: they asked me whether the Errata 
is Technical or Editorial; and I am allowed to make but one choice; my 
issue is Technical - I dont agree 64 IID - and the result is Editorial - 
delete myname; the process is confusing - ideally it should allow both 
Editorial and Technical to be selected as well.).

Alex

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:58:58 +0000

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexandre Petrescu" <[email-masked]>
To: "Fernando Gont" <[email-masked]>; "Nick Hilliard"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "IPv6" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: exploring the process of self retiring one's name from an
RFC

> >>>>>>  by copyright or other rights of authorship, the Contributor
and
> >>>>>> each
> >>>> Royalty as they want; it is the technical content that I do not
agree
> >>>> with.)

No, you need to look at the Finite State Machine for Errata.  As the
subject line of the e-mail says, it is

[Technical Errata Reported] RFC7421 (5699)

Future possibilities are Rejected or Verified

Tom Petch

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:06:30 +0200

> Future possibilities are Rejected or Verified

As for the statement "Future possibilities are Rejected or Verified", I 
can tell you that I verified what I say: this RFC makes people think 
64bit is a boundary.  It is common practice these days to request 
IP-over-foo documents to respect that 64bit boundary.  I guarantee you 
that was not the intention of my participation in that RFC.

As for 'Rejected': if it gets Rejected all I can hope is that the 
Rejecter read my Errata request first.

Alex

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:20:45 -0700

Hi Alex,
At 02:21 AM 19-04-2019, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>I consider using such process to retire my name from the RFC about 
>the 64bit boundary analysis.

There isn't any process to do that.

>For some reason I got in that group, then participated positively to 
>the discussion, and I let myself tempted to have my name up on the 
>first page of a published RFC; but finally, after much time and 
>reflexion, I think I do not agree with the effects of this RFC.

The actual issue is about something else, namely a change of mind 
about the contents of the RFC.  The RFC could be "retired" if the 
analysis, as documented in the RFC, is no longer viewed as correct.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 07:18:47 +0000

On 20 Apr 2019, at 03:22, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> I would like to ask whether there is process steps to retire one's name from a published RFC.
>> 
>> I consider using such process to retire my name from the RFC about the 64bit boundary analysis.
> 
>> For some reason I got in that group, then participated positively to the discussion, and I let myself tempted to have my name up on the first page of a published RFC; but finally, after much time and reflexion, I think I do not agree with the effects of this RFC.
> 
> The actual issue is about something else, namely a change of mind about the contents of the RFC.  The RFC could be "retired" if the analysis, as documented in the RFC, is no longer viewed as correct.

As another author of that RFC, I would object strongly to that.  The draft documents the pros and cons of the 64-bit boundary, why it exists, and impacts of changing it (assumptions made).  It does not preclude any such future change.

I recall at the time you had the view you are expressing now, but chose to remain an author.  I think you now have to live with that choice!

Tim