We do automatically notify authors when new drafts are posted, which
should usually alert surprised authors to the problem.
At this point the damage is already done: the surprised author now has
to publicly accuse the other author(s) of surprising them, which is
really burdensome and which said surprise author kit find completely
unpalatable for any number of reasons. This is not a solution.
I think it's as much of a solution as we can afford. For all the heat
this topic has provoked, the large majority of drafts with multiple
authors are sent in with the consent of all the authors. Anything that
makes it harder to surprise an author also makes it harder to be a
legitimate co-author. Given the amount of work already required to move
an idea from -00 draft to RFC it seems to me inadvisable to add another
hoop to jump through.
From the discussion so far, it appears that most surprised authors are due
to misunderstandings, not malice. So in the rare event that someone
disclaims authorship, the usual response would be oh, sorry, I'll resubmit
without you and that should be that. If it becomes a pattern or otherwise
shows malice, that would be a problem but it doesn't seem like one we have
to solve now, if ever.
Also, for better or worse the IETF has never tried to identify people
online beyond their e-mail addresses. I'm reasonably sure I know who you
are because I've talked to you at meetings, but there are plenty of people
who've don't come to meetings and contribute anyway, so all we have to go
on is the address. Since any e-mail verification can be trivially
circumvented with a fake address, it doesn't seem wise to build yet
another steel door on a cardboard box.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.