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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Jan 10 11:37:29 PST 2012

On 2012-01-10 20:09, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Joel,
> 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.
> Bob
> ...

Good point, but I don't think we actually *have* a problem with 10 
authors + affiliations (technically).

See <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-18>, 
for example.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list