[rfc-i] Fwd: Pre-IETF RFCs to Historic (not really proposing)

Fred Baker fred at cisco.com
Fri Sep 16 12:48:18 PDT 2011

On Sep 16, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>>> Well, yes. The simplistic approach would be to provide author at ietf.org
>>> email aliases that would forward to the current address. Or not...

>> Yes, that's the most general and well-established mechanism.  It's also
>> a strategic change, adding a long-term service that could be costly.

> Plus one wonders about people pushing to get an RFC published just so
> they can obtain a coveted @ietf.org email address.

What I was thinking about was the security nightmare. If I now have yet another email address that is more likely to actually reach me than some other might, I can think of an entire industry that would like to know that. And by the way, would happily send mail *from* it.

Hence the model of an introduction service that leaves me as the author in the position of choosing to engage or to not engage, and from what address I might be willing to engage.

Re cost, I'm not so sure it's high. First, we already have an email infrastructure and a form of web and database infrastructure. Second, I'm thinking about the amount of mail I receive that relates to finished RFCs. I obviously get email about internet drafts through IETF channels - working group lists. The I-D counterpart to the RFC service is, I think, email to draft-*@tools.ietf.org, which sends email to the authors of an internet draft, or email to "Fred and Margaret who wrote RFC ...". That is pretty much at a noise level.

As to testosterone-related behavior, we already have that too...

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list