--On Monday, September 16, 2013 18:34 +0100 Andy Mabbett
<andy(_at_)pigsonthewing(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk> wrote:
If the goal is to include contact info for the authors in the
document and in fact you can't be contacted using the info is
it contact info?
While I didn't say that the goal was to provide contact
info[*], an individual can do so through their ORCID profile,
which they manage and can update at any time.
The goal of the "author's address" section of the RFCs is
_precisely_ contact information. See, e.g.,
draft-flanagan-style-02 and its predecessors.
I can see some advantages in including ORCID or some similar
identifier along with the other contact information. I've been
particularly concerned about a related issue in which we permit
non-ASCII author names and then have even more trouble keeping
track of equivalences than you "J. Smith" example implies and
for which such an identifier would help. But, unless we were
to figure out how to require, not only that people have ORCIDs
but that they have and maintain contact information there (not
just "can do so"), I'd consider it useful supplemental
information, not a replacement for the contact information that
is now supposed to be present.
Treating an ORCID (or equivalent) as supplemental would also
avoid requiring the RSE to inquire about guarantees about the
permanence and availability of the relevant database. It may be
fine; I'd just like to avoid having to go there.
best,
john