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

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Jan 10 11:33:13 PST 2012

On Jan 10, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> I think that actually we should treat this as a real limitation, not just a process problem.  (If it were just a process problem, then fixing the process would indeed be correct.
>> We concluded many years ago that having long author lists on the front page produced a serious problem in getting the necessary information onto the front page.
>> Therefore, the length was to be limited, and the default limit was set to 5.
> Thanks for bringing this back to the underlying problem.
> I will observe that part of the cause of the problem that results in the limitation to 5 authors, is that we currently include the authors affiliation on the line after the authors name.  So in the worst case we need 10 lines for 5 authors.  If we were to drop the affiliation from the first page, this would allow for 10 authors.  The affiliations would continue to be listed in the author's address section.
> Personally, I think it's better to drop the affiliations from the first page, than to limit the number of authors to five (when there really are more than 5 authors).  This could at a minimum be a solution to the cases where there are more than 5 legitimate authors, or even better remove the affiliation from all future RFCs. 

If others think that it would be palatable to drop author/editor affiliations (from the front page only), I strongly support doing so and changing the maximum list size to 10 as long as we still encourage having much shorter lists where there is just one or two "main" authors or editors.

For a recent visual reference, see RFC 6444. Five authors, each with a different affiliation. There is a reasonable amount of space on the page for a good abstract and the top of the "Status" description.

--Paul Hoffman

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list