[rfc-i] I-D Action: draft-flanagan-nonascii-01.txt

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Apr 22 13:22:04 PDT 2014

On 22/04/2014 15:20, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Monday, April 21, 2014, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 22/04/2014 05:45, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>>> That said, this is something we touched on in the revised Style Guide:
>>> "Some variation, such as additional initials or capitalization of family
>>> name, is acceptable but the author should be consistent once they've
>>> selected a name format."
>> For me, that's perfect. It's actually in the author's interests to
>> be consistent, unless they have a good reason not to be, so "should"
>> is appropriate.
> Nonsense.  If i were to undergo gender reassignment and then wanted a
> different name (which i understand people who do do) I'd be damned if i
> were to allow my old name to appear as my current name in an RFC.

Indeed. That's *exactly* why "should" is appropriate, rather than "must",
and that's exactly why my original suggestion was "request" rather
than "require".

> I mean, do we not read the news?  do we not know that this sort of thing
> happens?

Actually, in the IETF and to my personal knowledge, we've had at least
one change of gender without a name change and at least one change of
family name for a male participant. In some cultures, women choose or
are even forced to change their name upon marriage. Kim Dotcom was born
Kim Schmitz. Yes, of course we must recognise and respect such events,
which is why "should" is the right word.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list