It would also be nice to have something like a "previous versions author's" section
in case authors are getting removed from this version. Instead of just having that
prior version as a reference. I think this may be an RFCXML issue given how i think
we currently only have authors and contributors.
Cheers
Toerless
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 03:15:11PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> +1
>
> Some tactfulness is required for the case of deceased main authors.
> The necessary discussions for this case can be coordinated by the RSCE.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 2025, at 15:11, Alexander PELOV <alexander.pelov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Alexander
> >
> > De: "Michael Richardson" <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > À: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> > Envoyé: Jeudi 24 Juillet 2025 15:01:57
> > Objet: Re: On authors, former authors, and so on
> >
> > Perhaps the right answer is that for -bis documents, that, having polled the
> > previous authors, if they want to continue to be listed, that the 5-author
> > rule be regularly waived. On a -bis-bis (a "-ter"), maybe the process is not
> > transitive. (Been there with rfc8415bis, which is rfc3315ter)
> >
> > But, let the IESG judge/decide at time of publication in consultation with
> > the RFC editor. Tell the WGs not to sweat the problem during I-D
> > developement. Just list everyone until IESG stage.
> >
> > I don't think we'll get into three pages of authors common in my other
> > scientific realms, such as high-energy physics.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
> > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
>
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
