John R. Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Are you okay with an RFC having *ONLY* an ORCID?
> No. That would be a significant change and would make RFCs less useful.
>> We only solve sob@harvard and the problem of deadnames by leaving all of
>> those out of the document.
> While I understand why deadnames are an issue, I also do not see that it is
> our job to tie ourselves in knots about it. To the extent that we can change
> entries in our databases, sure, do that.
Someone who is concerned going forward would want to proactively redact their
name. I think we already redact first names in many places via "ins",
although I'm not sure of the history of that. It seems to be what scientific
publications have done for a long time.
Thus the question about ORCID only.
> But we are not going to be able to
> go and retroactively edit every downloaded copy of every document we ever
> published, and I don't see any point in trying.
This was not the question, nor have I suggested it.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
