RE: Call for review of proposed IESG Statement on Examples

[Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com wrote:
> BTW, http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt
> does not absolutely require including an email address (if you give
> some other contact method, such as postal address or telephone
> number), and there are RFCs that don't include it (e.g RFC 3718
> from 2004; perhaps others exist, too).

There are also cases wheres where contacting the author would require 
somewhat unconventional methods, e.g. RFC 3542...

What disturbs me as a reviewer is when a draft does not include email 
address(es) of authors or where comments should be sent.  I'm having 
difficulty figuring out the usefulness of such a draft.

FWIW, IMHO, any spam argument seems bogus.  Anyone actively 
participating is already leaving such an email address footprint all 
over the net (including elsewhere in the IETF) that a) they already 
need protection mechanisms, and b) obfuscation methods (if used) 
should be reasonable.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf