Dear all,
I think that if there is an objetion of many people, that would be OK
if we put the IETF as author and IESG as contact. This, I think, will
be considered as appropriate for this ocasion.
Moreover, if I do not want to provide my contact data except email to
the community, that is my right, anyway.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
2011/1/12, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>:
At 08:29 11-01-11, t.petch wrote:
The provenance of the editor is unknown to
me - and of course, once an RFC has been through the IETF processes,
then the editorship is an irrelevance - but I am concerned that I have
no awareness of the contact provided as the scheme 'Author/Change
controller',
no track record, no affiliation, a gmail address. This seems more than
discourtesy, this seems wrong.
There is a city and country mentioned under Author's Address. It is
not the first time an author uses a gmail address. If an author is
new to the IETF, he or she won't have any track record within the IETF.
According to the RFC Style Guide:
"Contact information must include at least one, and ideally would
include all, of a postal address, a telephone number and/or FAX
number, and a long-lived email address. The purpose of this section
is to (1) unambiguously define author/contributor identity (e.g., the
John Smith who works for FooBar Systems) and to (2) provide contact
information for future readers who have questions or comments. Note
that some professional societies offer long-lived email addresses for
their members."
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf