[rfc-i] Valid email addresses [last call "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and overload."]

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Jan 10 12:47:55 PST 2012


On 2012-01-11 09:36, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> On 1/10/12 12:14 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe this is a side issue, but I am aware of a quite recent case
>>> where an author insisted on listing an obsolete email address in
>>> an RFC, because it was his address at the former employer where
>>> he did the work.
>>>
>>> We know that email addresses are not for ever, but should there be
>>> a default policy requiring a valid address at the date of publication?
>>
>> Good point, and it is not just email. Should the policy be that the 
>> stated affiliation be valid at the time of publication, regardless
>> of what the affiliation was during the document development?
>>
>>
> 
> (removing RSE hat for a moment)
> 
> Requiring current affiliation makes me twitch a bit.  If Joe Smith does
> his work on an RFC as part of his employment contract with Cisco, and
> then during the AUTH48 process goes to work for Juniper, putting Joe
> Smith, senior engineer at Juniper as the affiliation seems very bad
> form.  That said, I think it is the author's call, and he and his
> previous employer can discuss any breach of contract.

Affiliation for the work and contact address for the author are
two separate concepts, which have traditionally been blended in
RFCs. If we want to tease them apart, that would need some input
from our IPR lawyer - but maybe we first have to decide whether the
Author's Address is for contact or for affiliation.

    Brian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list