On 9/18/2013 8:59 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Andy, we just don't have a tradition of identifying people whose
contributed to RFCs with either contact or identification
information. It is explicitly possible when "Contributors"
sections are created and people are listed there, but contact or
identification information is not required in that section,
rarely provided, and, IIR, not supported by the existing tools.
That doesn't necessarily mean that doing so is a bad idea
(although I contend that getting it down to listings in
Acknowledgments would be) but that making enough changes to both
incorporate the information and make it available as metadata
would be a rather significant amount of work and would probably
reopen policy issues about who is entitled to be listed.
If I learned nothing else while mis-spending the mid-2000s talking about
IETF process change, it's that if you want anything to change, take the
first step toward changing it.
If you can come up with a URN definition for ORCID and stuff it into
your own author block as a URI without asking for permission or tooling
changes, and you think doing so would be helpful, do it.
If three people include ORCIDs in their contact information during the
next two years, we're probably done. If 300 people do it, we can talk
about whether that turned out to be useful, and whether taking some
other step would be useful, too.
There have been (counting me) four sitting ADs posting on this 90-email
thread, plus another six or so former ADs, including a former IETF
chair, plus at least six or so WG chairs, plus other participants of
good mind and good hearts. I'm thinking that if it was possible to
reason what the right answer should be, we would have all agreed.
Perhaps we've all agreed ("dear Jari, did we all agree?"), but if not,
the next step could be to try something, and see if it's good enough, or
if we need to try something else.
Spencer